29 ms·
There's also the option of a shared source licence. This means providing the source code, but only allowing free non-commercial use. Commercial use would th
by DonaldFisk 11y ago
There's also the option of a shared source licence. This means providing the source code, but only allowing free non-commercial use. Commercial use would then come under a different licence and would have to be paid for.
Third party contributors whose work is included in commercial sales would then be given a portion of the revenue from those sales.
- sytse 11y agoOnly allowing non-commercial use is a serious inhibitor of the popularity of the project. More common is to have a AGPL/GPLv3 license that some companies will pay to get rid of. Alternatively use a business friendly license (MIT Expat) and have open core business model where some features are proprietary (like we at GitLab use).
- DonaldFisk 11y agoA shared source licence still allows commercial use of the software - it just has to be paid for. If it is given away, with or without strings attached, there is no direct way for the developers to be remunerated for their effort. Open source might encourage a few companies to contribute to projects, but that only pays the developers of that software who are employed by those companies. Private individuals, or non-profit institutions, can still use shared source software. A few might be put off if they think it won't help them to find a job, but even they will think twice if companies start paying to use it. Having popular software is nice, but it doesn't pay the bills if you can't charge for it.