5 ms·

All of the software I have written for money is free software. In some fields it is hard to not do that: Wordpress plugins, for example, are GPL licensed by def

All of the software I have written for money is free software. In some fields it is hard to not do that: Wordpress plugins, for example, are GPL licensed by default. Can you elaborate what problems you have run into?

m_mueller 10y ago
How would you solve the following use-case: You want users to be able to try your software for non commercial use, but you want them to pay for commercial. I don't see how GPL licenses can do that for you. In fact, I don't know any common OSS license that has non-commercial limitations with the option of purchasing a commercial license.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Creative Commons works that way. So its possible.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    People keep saying CC, but that license has never been intended for software. Did it ever stand up to a trial in court for this usecase? See also [1]. Why isn't there something like CC NC geared for software? [1] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_... > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available.
    - belorn 10y ago
      Is it important if court has tested the license? A software license is like a will, in that it describes the authors intention in a legal binding document. A infringer would need to prove in court that their activity does not conflict with the requirements of the license, and the words "non-commercial" would be quite hard to sneak around. The main reason that FSF and similar activly advice against such license is primarily because "non-commercial" is ambiguous and there is a clear risk for the recipients/re-distributors if the original author starts to act abusive. A common example I have heard is public schools vs private school, where the later is a commercial activity and the former is common viewed as not. How that would translate to a student using it in a student project would be up in the air. If I where you, I would instead copy the license of the unreal engine. That is, you don't look at the commercial status but rather on profits from products that include your work. If someone is earning profits, regardless of the nature of the organization who do so, then a cut is required to be given to you. Its simple, it fixes the school problem above, and there is a "industry" example to use if it ever became a court case. The big drawback is that its not an open source compatible license.
- erlehmann_ 10y ago
  You can always dual-license the software. The GPL version of your software can always be a basic version, customers could pay for features they want to have.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    Yes, but we're at the start again: Only when you don't depend on other GPL software at compile time (and even runtime bindings can be tricky AFAIK). So it only works if all people do is write a bunch of siloes and don't work as a community at all. So, looking at Linux system software as an example, it only works as long as you stay far away from the kernel.
    - erlehmann_ 10y ago
      If you depend on software, the authors of the dependencies have done a part of your job for you. GPL basically says the authors only agree to help you on the condition that you also help others. You can always choose not to be a part of such a community, then you will not get help. What is the problem?
      - m_mueller 10y ago
        For me the problem is that GPL mixes up the requirement of "Open Source" (which I'm fine with) with a requirement that anything depending on it has to be GPL as well (which I have a problem with). Basically, if GPL would allow someone to sell licenses to his software as long as he keeps publishing the sources, it would go a long way to enable a userland application market on top of GNU based kernels. Gnu.org could even demand a percentage of revenues going towards the GNU foundation. IMO that would make Linux even free-er since it would democratise the way kernel development is funded (i.e. redistribute some of the influence away from the big software corporations who currently chip in). Right now kernel development works fine because you have the right gatekeepers at the top (especially LT), but I wonder what happens when he retires - will some committee take over?
        10y ago

m_mueller 10y ago

How would you solve the following use-case: You want users to be able to try your software for non commercial use, but you want them to pay for commercial. I don't see how GPL licenses can do that for you. In fact, I don't know any common OSS license that has non-commercial limitations with the option of purchasing a commercial license.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Creative Commons works that way. So its possible.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  People keep saying CC, but that license has never been intended for software. Did it ever stand up to a trial in court for this usecase? See also [1]. Why isn't there something like CC NC geared for software? [1] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F https://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_... > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available.
  - belorn 10y ago
    Is it important if court has tested the license? A software license is like a will, in that it describes the authors intention in a legal binding document. A infringer would need to prove in court that their activity does not conflict with the requirements of the license, and the words "non-commercial" would be quite hard to sneak around. The main reason that FSF and similar activly advice against such license is primarily because "non-commercial" is ambiguous and there is a clear risk for the recipients/re-distributors if the original author starts to act abusive. A common example I have heard is public schools vs private school, where the later is a commercial activity and the former is common viewed as not. How that would translate to a student using it in a student project would be up in the air. If I where you, I would instead copy the license of the unreal engine. That is, you don't look at the commercial status but rather on profits from products that include your work. If someone is earning profits, regardless of the nature of the organization who do so, then a cut is required to be given to you. Its simple, it fixes the school problem above, and there is a "industry" example to use if it ever became a court case. The big drawback is that its not an open source compatible license.
erlehmann_ 10y ago
You can always dual-license the software. The GPL version of your software can always be a basic version, customers could pay for features they want to have.
- m_mueller 10y ago
  Yes, but we're at the start again: Only when you don't depend on other GPL software at compile time (and even runtime bindings can be tricky AFAIK). So it only works if all people do is write a bunch of siloes and don't work as a community at all. So, looking at Linux system software as an example, it only works as long as you stay far away from the kernel.
  - erlehmann_ 10y ago
    If you depend on software, the authors of the dependencies have done a part of your job for you. GPL basically says the authors only agree to help you on the condition that you also help others. You can always choose not to be a part of such a community, then you will not get help. What is the problem?
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      For me the problem is that GPL mixes up the requirement of "Open Source" (which I'm fine with) with a requirement that anything depending on it has to be GPL as well (which I have a problem with). Basically, if GPL would allow someone to sell licenses to his software as long as he keeps publishing the sources, it would go a long way to enable a userland application market on top of GNU based kernels. Gnu.org could even demand a percentage of revenues going towards the GNU foundation. IMO that would make Linux even free-er since it would democratise the way kernel development is funded (i.e. redistribute some of the influence away from the big software corporations who currently chip in). Right now kernel development works fine because you have the right gatekeepers at the top (especially LT), but I wonder what happens when he retires - will some committee take over?
      - 10y ago