Open source licenses as they exist today aren’t sustainable to run a business. We’ve seen with the cloud providers how easy it is to launch a competitor if you don’t have protective licensing. Gumroad’s licensing is still small business friendly and protects another Gumroad clone from being launched.
Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
21–30 of 57 posts
Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
#22[deleted]
Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
#23It seems to me what they are really doing is offering a free self-hosting license to businesses that make less than a given amount in sales.
This allows them to offer a free "plan" without incurring the hosting costs of providing the service.
Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
#24Again with the pointless discussion about what the "widely regarded definition of open source" is. The source is there. That's it.
IMO the distinction is important; it tells me, broadly, what I can and cannot do with the source code.
Heck, the .NET Framework source has been available for eons (referencesource.microsoft.com), but you can't go compile it and build your own .NET Framework distro (Mono is a different story).
Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
#25Note that the HN submission's title was changed to "Gumroad’s source is available" after it was screenshotted for this post.
Additionally, this submission's title was changed from "Gumroad Did Not Become Open Source Today" to "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"
Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
#26Open source licenses as they exist today aren’t sustainable to run a business. We’ve seen with the cloud providers how easy it is to launch a competitor if you don’t have protective licensing. Gumroad’s licensing is still small business friendly and protects another Gumroad clone from being launched.
For web services maybe. I don't see Amazon destroy the business of a desktop application.
Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
#27Note that the HN submission's title was changed to "Gumroad’s source is available" after it was screenshotted for this post.
Additionally, this submission's title was changed from "Gumroad Did Not Become Open Source Today" to "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"
For whatever reason. It was the original title and is descriptive. Are the mods having a bad day?
Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
#28Open source licenses as they exist today aren’t sustainable to run a business. We’ve seen with the cloud providers how easy it is to launch a competitor if you don’t have protective licensing. Gumroad’s licensing is still small business friendly and protects another Gumroad clone from being launched.
I would argue it is possible to run a business and be sustainable on open source, it's just harder and is not so compatible with the growth that many want.
I don't have an issue with this kind of license being used where open source does not suit, but I don't think we should change/widen the definition of "open source" to suit the sustainability needs of those that open source isn't compatible with, at the impact of the freedoms and open rights it provides.
Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
#29IMO this is a losing battle. Regardless of good intentions, the term "open source" is simply not descriptive enough to carry connotations about licensing. To the layman all it means is that the source is open (accessible to the public). IMO the OSI would be better off coming up with a more clear term and popularizing that rather than trying to convince everyone that their restrictive definition of "open source" is the one true definition.
Don't get me wrong. I think OSI's approach to open source is admirable. I think there should be a useful term to describe what they currently call "open source" and I think projects which use those licenses should be celebrated. I just don't think they're going to win the battle for the term "open source" in the long term.
Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source
#30Again with the pointless discussion about what the "widely regarded definition of open source" is. The source is there. That's it.
"open source" has been defined by the OSI since decades and this does not fit that definition.