16 ms·

Supported Source – Great Software Projects Deserve Great Support

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> Our projects charge for licenses, while keeping the source code public, like open source. Except for being completely incompatible with both the Open Source Definition and Free Software definition, incompatible with any copyleft license, and otherwise incompatible with the entire FOSS ecosystem. OSD #5 and DFSG #6 specifically prohibit restrictions on commercial/business use, as does the FSF's Free Software Definition ('“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”.') I've seen many attempts at this come and go, and they all have this same fundamental problem.
- yup123 10y ago
  I agree, however we should support projects like this, i think many engineers including myself dream of being able to make a living via open-source.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    I agree with the goal, just not with the method. Many people already make a living working on Open Source, for a wide variety of companies. This project, however, doesn't help people make a living via Open Source; it encourages people to release code under a proprietary license with source code available.
    - forsaken 10y ago
      Is that not better than adopting a more classic proprietary model where the source code isn't available? I totally agree with the philosophical argument around OSS --but at the end of the day, people need to eat. If you're going to argue that we should all OSS our code, you need to specify a way to make it sustainable (see http://www.fordfoundation.org/library/reports-and-studies/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure http://www.fordfoundation.org/library/reports-and-studies/ro... for more on the unsustainability).
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        If it's not Open Source, better that it not look Open Source and cause confusion. See also the various "Shared Source" schemes over the years, which caused similar confusion. I've seen that report; I don't think I'd characterize its description as "unsustainable" so much as "needs further attention".
    - DonaldFisk 10y ago
      OK, suppose I have some software which is well written, works straight out of the box, and doesn't require any support. I'm quite happy for people to use it, but would like a share of any revenue commercial users gain through its use. With FOSS, if I give it away, I won't get any. If I sell it, there's nothing to stop the purchaser from giving it away, so I get paid once before seeing my work being given away.
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        Various common models, in order of simplicity and effectiveness: - License it under a copyleft license. Works the same as what you describe, except s/commercial/proprietary/, and is completely compatible with the FOSS ecosystem. You get paid by any company (or individual) who wants to ship proprietary software built on your code. - Work for a company that gains revenue by releasing the code, and pays you accordingly. For instance, a company that sells more hardware because of the code. - As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, charge for compiled binaries, for the convenience of non-developers. - Provide a paid service based on the code. - Require payment up front before releasing the software (crowdfunding model). Only works before you write/release the software, and benefits from an established reputation.
        DonaldFisk 10y ago
        I don't see any way of legally enforcing payment for the use of software released under the terms of the GNU GPL. Points 2 and 3 have the risk of being undercut, though they might work in some cases. Point 4 might be valid, but once its released there's no further guarantee you'll be paid. I've thought about licensing issues, as I have software I'd like to release when it's ready, but I also would like to be paid for it by anyone who uses it to generate revenue for themselves. Up until the early 1980s, system software development was paid for by various computer manufacturers, as it could only run on their machines. As a result of generic hardware and open-source software, hardly any similar work exists today.
        JoshTriplett 10y ago
  - davexunit 10y ago
    But if you do this "supported source" thing, you wouldn't be making a living off of open source, you'd be making a living off of proprietary software, which changes nothing.
    - mwcampbell 10y ago
      But at least the source would be available, so it would have some of the advantages of open source.
      - davexunit 10y ago
        But no one could do anything with it. It completely negates what open source is about.
        patcon 10y ago
        Couldn't there theoretically be a license that allows open source projects to use it and remix it, but business usage must be sub-licensed? There are some downsides, but I'd be willing to consider that if it meant more sustainable funding sources for those contributing the most to maintenance.
        JoshTriplett 10y ago
        > Couldn't there theoretically be a license that allows open source projects to use it and remix it, but business usage must be sub-licensed? No, those two requirements are incompatible. I'm in favor of the goal here, just not this particular method.
        neuland 10y ago
        I don't think that's possible in the spirit of open source or free software. If I under stand you correctly, projects that use a commercial-paid/non-commerial-free project as a dependency would also be required to use a compatible business-paid/personal-free license. This is what people complain about re: the GPL. It says that the most important thing is getting paid, and we'll throw the non-commercial people (non-profits, personal projects, etc) a bone, because maybe they'll contribute something back to us. That's fine to do if someone wants to. But, it's certainly not free software. And, it's not open source either, except that the source is visible. Like others have said, visible source it's all that helpful if you can't do anything with it. Business should donate more to free software.
  - tajen 10y ago
    No, don't do that: - supportedsource.org requires you to put your code under proprietary license, which is bad because it's not open-source (If someone wants to fix a bug in your software, they can't do it). - It is absolutely possible to sell open-source software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html - The drawback is, people can put your software for free on BitTorrent. - But companies will pay you because they want the original, genuine copy. They don't want to risk getting an unofficial fork where someone might have introduced a keylogger, and a lot of engineers actually prefer to retribute authors for their software. They actually pay the service that someone has code-reviewed what was merged into the software they get. - If that's not enough for you, you can put a lock in your code and distribute the binary packages for a price. Yes people can remove the lock, but most companies aren't willing to recompile or even look at the code, and they'll pay. Plus, those that are willing to recompile already have their hands dirty, so they're twice closer to submitting improvements to your code ;) which is the meaning of "open-source". In conclusion, don't use supportedsource.org, and just sell the packaged copies of your software.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      This is especially true with "app stores"; it's sufficiently difficult to get apps into the Apple and Android stores, and sufficiently common to have adware-laden variants, that people will pay for an official version linked from the main project site. Also true on other platforms where people don't commonly have access to a compiler, such as Windows.
pritambaral 10y ago
One line summary: DRM-free, licensed-for-commercial-use, source code. I like the idea, strongly. But I am a bit apprehensive about how the projects that sign up for this may exploit it; especially considering how some projects put up a facade of being open while important bits and portions remain closed. On the other hand, if such a project becomes used to being paid for its visible-source bits, and paid a bit more for the hidden-source bits, I suspect they'd see little incentive to remain on the Supported Source platform and instead move entirely to hidden-source. "They're paying for it anyway. Why give away our code for cheaper, when we can keep it and charge more!"
jordigh 10y ago
From the FAQ: > Open source is public source that's monetarily free This isn't really true, as you really can charge for free software as much as you want, but you also can't forbid people from redistributing it without paying for it. This is why you can't download from RedHat's repos without paying for access, but also why CentOS can exist. (I have also heard that RedHat threatens to terminate your access if you exercise your redistribution rights, but I am not sure this is true.) I guess "supported source" is a statement that there is only room for one Red Hat in this world, and everyone else must restrict redistribution.
tsg94 10y ago
I love the idea and hope it succeeds. The problem is that programmers are cheap and won't pay for open source software.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  I'll happily pay for Open Source software, and have done so many times. This isn't Open Source, though.
  - ffggvv 10y ago
    I'm curious, which ones?
    - ohstopitu 10y ago
      I've donated to Ubuntu (I felt it got me started on programming and interested enough in computers). Usually when I download their desktop OS (~$79/a year)
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      I've donated to half a dozen FOSS projects or organizations, and to a couple of individual FOSS developers. For two of those, I provide monthly donations, for more than the typical cost of a proprietary software license. I've paid for crowdfunding projects whose result got released as FOSS. I've also helped arrange corporate donations to FOSS projects.
  - mwcampbell 10y ago
    The problem is that paying for open-source software isn't something that people do by default in the normal course of obtaining it, as one does when legally obtaining proprietary software, a book, music, etc. It's something that you have to deliberately go out of your way to do. Until that problem is solved, most users won't pay for open-source software, even if they'd have no problem doing so in principle.
    - davexunit 10y ago
shmerl 10y ago
Bad idea when it's presented as a substitute for FOSS. You can charge for support of FOSS based products as well.
- the_hoser 10y ago
  I agree that it shouldn't be called FOSS, but let's stop kidding ourselves about the 'charge for support' model. Few kinds of software require the kind of support that would keep a single developer off the street. Most of the types that do can rarely be supported by a single developer. I like the idea of a paid-source licensing program. I just don't know how it could work, long-term.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    One model that does work quite well: release code under a copyleft license, and charge for licenses/exceptions that allow linking to proprietary software. Next time you're thinking of releasing some code under an all-permissive license, consider using a copyleft license instead, which leaves you with options in the future.
    - Ghostium 10y ago
      The other option would be open core (crippled open source). However, I dislike both, I still would prefer supported source as the goal is more clear.
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        I dislike the "open core" model as well. However, I don't see anything wrong with the copyleft, "release your source too or pay us" model. That provides very similar results: fellow developers can collaborate on the source, and companies building something they don't want to share can pay for an alternative license/exception so they don't have to. But instead of using a proprietary license to do so, that model uses a standard FOSS license, and works with the rest of the FOSS ecosystem.
leonnoel 10y ago
Is there a name for companies that release their code under an actual free license, but charge for other things like support? Companies that come to mind are flynn.io or sidekiq.org (both of which were recently on the front-page).
- danielsiders 10y ago
  Flynn co-founder here. Great question. We just consider ourselves to be a normal company that happens to build open source tools. We also try to make money in ways that don't interfere with the open nature of what we build. There are lots of different kinds of companies whose engineers primarily work on open source projects. In most cases where their core "product" is an open source technology they also sell commercial support, usually to large companies who need an SLA. Others (like us) sell managed services as well. We made the decision before we started the company to make anything we ever asked users to run on their own machines permissively licensed open source and just be careful with our trademark (like Mozilla is[1]). That leaves the door open for closed-source SaaS in the future but gives our users (and investors) a clear set of expectations about how and what we'll build. I think it's important for companies to be as clear as possible about how and why they license their code, what choices they'll make in the future, and what happens when the company changes hands. It would be great to see something like an "open source pledge" where founders/the company could contractually commit to either a final open source release before closing (like Parse did[2]) or staying open after being acquired (like Sun didn't after being acquired by Oracle [3]). [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/ [2] http://blog.parse.com/announcements/introducing-parse-server-and-the-database-migration-tool/ http://blog.parse.com/announcements/introducing-parse-server... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system)#Post-Oracle_closed_source_.28Solaris_10_after_March_2010.2C_and_Solaris_11_.282011_and_later.29.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system)#Pos... edit: We tend to avoid calling ourselves an "open source company" which can get confused with the "open company" movement[4]. [4] http://www.opencompany.org/ http://www.opencompany.org/
- dublinben 10y ago
  Red Hat is a billion dollar company that does exactly that.
RKoutnik 10y ago
Interesting idea, though explaining the complications of licensing may cause problems when it comes to marketing. I've had a related idea for a while, setting up SaaS for FOSS maintainers to charge for a SLA (license/source is still open, corps essentially have some security that the project won't be abandoned). Is there anything out there like that?
- jordigh 10y ago
  Not quite with a SLA, but there's Bountysource: https://www.bountysource.com/ https://www.bountysource.com/
davexunit 10y ago
This site is a joke. It misunderstands what open source is, says it's "like" open source despite being completely incompatible. Open source isn't just about being able to view the source, it's about being able to redistribute it, modify it, and distribute those modifications.
jordigh 10y ago
Don't give away your free software and open source software either. Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it! https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html Just because it's free doesn't mean you have to put it on a public server for anyone to download. It's perfectly within the definitions of the open source and free software licenses to only distribute the software to paying customers. Or maybe it's impossible to do this now because the internet has made it trivial to redistribute software, I don't know.
- fundamental 10y ago
  Have you seen any projects successfully selling the source code of a fully open source application/library and making a non-trivial amount? I've seen some projects which receive some funding by charging for compiled binaries, but that revenue is for the additional service of compiling/supporting the use of pre-compiled binaries IMO.
  - jordigh 10y ago
    No, but I have not seen anyone try either in a long time, not since Emacs source code used to cost 100 dollars. There are companies like Red Hat which charge you money for access to their repos, but I suppose you would argue that they're charging for building the binaries too. Everyone nowadays just puts up all of their source code online without asking money for it. Nobody even tries to sell it. I also think perhaps buying software in general is becoming a bit of an outdated idea. Everyone wants to sell subscriptions now.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- serge2k 10y ago
  But they are entirely free to give it to anyone else.
edoceo 10y ago
It's similar to how M$ does their "open" source licenses
gregmac 10y ago
> The Supported Source License is comparable to a license you'd typically find with proprietary software. What makes a project Supported Source, instead of closed proprietary software, is that the code is online, open to pull requests, and there's a free trial. Can anyone explain how pull requests would work in this situation? Does part of the pull request sign the contribution over to the original license holder? How iron-clad is that? I can just imagine how much legal headache that could cause if a contributor decided that they owned part of the software. I'm also curious about accepting pull requests in this way. Implicitly, the project owner takes over responsibility. In this respect, regular open source projects benefit from a lack of "official" support to begin with: if the PR does something that causes a complete breakage at some point, it's considered par for the course and fixed in due time. If however, something breaks with commercial software, there is a pretty high burden on the vendor to fix it. I have worked in commercial software for years. It's a constant struggle as it is to say No to feature requests (for various reasons: not worthwhile, very hard to support, going in opposite direction of roadmap, etc). The worst are from the technical customers who say things like "why don't you just.." but don't understand the other ways the software is used (maybe by their competitors) with which their change is incompatible. I imagine it would be an order of magnitude harder to say No to a full fledged pull request, and there would be immense pressure to accept it, since after all, the work is already done.. except that also means taking on the burden of maintaining and supporting it. Anyone have experience accepting contributions from customers for commercial software?
- forsaken 10y ago
  I imagine it would work like a CLA in a lot of company sponsored open source. You retain copyright, but allow the owner to distribute it under their specified license terms. Or you could have a CLA that actually assigns copyright. The ongoing maintenance of the contribution is definitely an interesting question. That is the same with classic OSS projects too, though. I know a number of projects that are going towards making a pluggable core with plugins maintained externally to reduce this burden.
gtirloni 10y ago
Who is "Supported Source" ? Domain is behind privacy wall, no mention of a formal company/foundation name, etc. Looks just like an intermediary to sell licenses.
sjellis 10y ago
We need a better funding model for Open Source than a relatively small number of tech companies effectively paying everybody else's bills, but I don't think that this is it. Other people have talked about the developer side, but not-quite Open Source doesn't necessarily work for users, either. Open Source is often less about money than convenience: the difference between totally free and $1 is sometimes all the difference. If Product A is FOSS under a OSI-approved license you can use it everywhere: you can try it out at home and on personal projects, install it on your machines at work, perhaps try and get your company to standardize on it, and work with third-party services that use exactly the same software. Once there's a form or a fee then there's meetings, and paperwork, and hassle.
lifeisstillgood 10y ago
Ok crazy idea but we do need to solve this OSS problem somehow. My personal view is that governments should take the lead in paying for development of OSS (http://www.oss4gov.org/manifesto http://www.oss4gov.org/manifesto - full disclosure I run this site (badly))
andrewchambers 10y ago
Tbh, I find some of the complaints in this thread about it not being totally free irritating. When food, houses and healthcare are all free, maybe all code can be free too. (But i don't think a society has ever succeeded by doing that.) I personally don't have a problem with a license that allows a user to modify source code, and run modified source code, but only after paying a fee. It seems to me DOOM mods work like this already, the code is free, but the game resources like textures etc can only be used after paying for a license. Id software gets paid, people can hack all day on the game, seems like win win to me.
- nixos 10y ago
  The problem is that it doesn't help. Commercial open source tends to be done for two reasons: 1. Common goal development. Several companies needs a UNIX. Rather than do all the development themselves, they work together. That's how Linux works. 2. Backup if original company's strategic goals move from your goal. Here, neither work as you can't cooperate with others due to licensing issues.
  - andrewchambers 10y ago
    If the license doesn't allow applying or distributing third party patches I would be annoyed. If it allows it provided each party has paid for a license I would be happy.
    - jrpt 10y ago
      It says right here, https://supportedsource.org/definition https://supportedsource.org/definition "Modifications. The license must permit modifications to the source code." But you also can't just take parts of the code and redistribute it for free, because "Restricted Uses. The license should include restricted uses, such as disallowing resale or sublicensing." The point isn't to prevent people from customizing their use of the software. The point is to create a system where developers get paid and projects are financially sustainable, instead of being abandoned or barely maintained.
mikekchar 10y ago
This is such a political topic that I know I should keep my mouth shut. But, I've had this brewing in my head for a long time and now's as good a time as any to put it down in digital ink. I remember seeing an interview with Karl Lagerfeld. As many people know, there is no copyright on fashion designs. That means that when he makes a design and sells it, virtually the next day there are knockoffs in the market. They asked him if this upset him. He said (and I paraphrase), "No. People who would buy those knockoffs are not my customers". In other words, if you don't care about the Karl Lagerfeld brand, or if you don't have enough money to afford his brand, you might buy a knock off bag. This doesn't really affect his sales because you wouldn't have bought his bag anyway. Similarly, people who want to buy his bag, will not buy a knockoff -- no matter how cheap it is. They are his customers. In the same way, as a software author, it is not actually difficult to get paid for free software. The main thing is you have to ask to get paid. If you are the author of a major piece of software, people will pay you for that work. Those people are your customers. The main thing (very much like fashion) is that only some software will attract paying customers. This isn't really a problem with the license. As a programmer, locking your customers in so that they can only turn to you for help is not necessarily going to increase your sales. What you really need is exposure. You need to be popular. This is where open source works well. With open source, you have a very low barrier of entry for your potential customers. They also have a very low risk profile. They can use your code, or even parts of your code and if it doesn't work out, they can replace it cheaply. Again, as a programmer without access to lots of marketing money to bring in customers, I think this is going to help you out a lot better than locking your customers in to your platform. The key here is that once you have exposure and your project is popular, then you can ask your customers to pay for new work. Experience has shown that people who can afford to pay, and who value your work will actually pay. Just like the fashion industry. Where things diverge is when you are not a programmer. Let's say, you do not want to make money from writing code. Instead you want to make money from code as an asset. You have a bunch of source code that is already written and you want to treat it like it was a bushel of apples (err... a kind of endless bushel of apples, since you can sell it over and over again). In that case, you absolutely do not want to allow competition -- because anybody can sell a bushel of apples (endless bushel's of apples are especially appealing, it seems). So, if you are saying to yourself, "How do I get paid for writing free software", I really don't think this is going to work (especially since it isn't free software!) You are raising the barrier to entry for your customers. This is going to make your project less attractive, not more. The only people this can potentially help are non-programmers who want to reduce competition with their proprietary software.

> Our projects charge for licenses, while keeping the source code public, like open source. Except for being completely incompatible with both the Open Source Definition and Free Software definition, incompatible with any copyleft license, and otherwise incompatible with the entire FOSS ecosystem. OSD #5 and DFSG #6 specifically prohibit restrictions on commercial/business use, as does the FSF's Free Software Definition ('“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”.') I've seen many attempts at this come and go, and they all have this same fundamental problem.

yup123 10y ago
I agree, however we should support projects like this, i think many engineers including myself dream of being able to make a living via open-source.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  I agree with the goal, just not with the method. Many people already make a living working on Open Source, for a wide variety of companies. This project, however, doesn't help people make a living via Open Source; it encourages people to release code under a proprietary license with source code available.
  - forsaken 10y ago
    Is that not better than adopting a more classic proprietary model where the source code isn't available? I totally agree with the philosophical argument around OSS --but at the end of the day, people need to eat. If you're going to argue that we should all OSS our code, you need to specify a way to make it sustainable (see http://www.fordfoundation.org/library/reports-and-studies/roads-and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure http://www.fordfoundation.org/library/reports-and-studies/ro... for more on the unsustainability).
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      If it's not Open Source, better that it not look Open Source and cause confusion. See also the various "Shared Source" schemes over the years, which caused similar confusion. I've seen that report; I don't think I'd characterize its description as "unsustainable" so much as "needs further attention".
  - DonaldFisk 10y ago
    OK, suppose I have some software which is well written, works straight out of the box, and doesn't require any support. I'm quite happy for people to use it, but would like a share of any revenue commercial users gain through its use. With FOSS, if I give it away, I won't get any. If I sell it, there's nothing to stop the purchaser from giving it away, so I get paid once before seeing my work being given away.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      Various common models, in order of simplicity and effectiveness: - License it under a copyleft license. Works the same as what you describe, except s/commercial/proprietary/, and is completely compatible with the FOSS ecosystem. You get paid by any company (or individual) who wants to ship proprietary software built on your code. - Work for a company that gains revenue by releasing the code, and pays you accordingly. For instance, a company that sells more hardware because of the code. - As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, charge for compiled binaries, for the convenience of non-developers. - Provide a paid service based on the code. - Require payment up front before releasing the software (crowdfunding model). Only works before you write/release the software, and benefits from an established reputation.
      - DonaldFisk 10y ago
        I don't see any way of legally enforcing payment for the use of software released under the terms of the GNU GPL. Points 2 and 3 have the risk of being undercut, though they might work in some cases. Point 4 might be valid, but once its released there's no further guarantee you'll be paid. I've thought about licensing issues, as I have software I'd like to release when it's ready, but I also would like to be paid for it by anyone who uses it to generate revenue for themselves. Up until the early 1980s, system software development was paid for by various computer manufacturers, as it could only run on their machines. As a result of generic hardware and open-source software, hardly any similar work exists today.
        JoshTriplett 10y ago
- davexunit 10y ago
  But if you do this "supported source" thing, you wouldn't be making a living off of open source, you'd be making a living off of proprietary software, which changes nothing.
  - mwcampbell 10y ago
    But at least the source would be available, so it would have some of the advantages of open source.
    - davexunit 10y ago
      But no one could do anything with it. It completely negates what open source is about.
      - patcon 10y ago
        Couldn't there theoretically be a license that allows open source projects to use it and remix it, but business usage must be sub-licensed? There are some downsides, but I'd be willing to consider that if it meant more sustainable funding sources for those contributing the most to maintenance.
        JoshTriplett 10y ago
        > Couldn't there theoretically be a license that allows open source projects to use it and remix it, but business usage must be sub-licensed? No, those two requirements are incompatible. I'm in favor of the goal here, just not this particular method.
        neuland 10y ago
        I don't think that's possible in the spirit of open source or free software. If I under stand you correctly, projects that use a commercial-paid/non-commerial-free project as a dependency would also be required to use a compatible business-paid/personal-free license. This is what people complain about re: the GPL. It says that the most important thing is getting paid, and we'll throw the non-commercial people (non-profits, personal projects, etc) a bone, because maybe they'll contribute something back to us. That's fine to do if someone wants to. But, it's certainly not free software. And, it's not open source either, except that the source is visible. Like others have said, visible source it's all that helpful if you can't do anything with it. Business should donate more to free software.
- tajen 10y ago
  No, don't do that: - supportedsource.org requires you to put your code under proprietary license, which is bad because it's not open-source (If someone wants to fix a bug in your software, they can't do it). - It is absolutely possible to sell open-source software: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html - The drawback is, people can put your software for free on BitTorrent. - But companies will pay you because they want the original, genuine copy. They don't want to risk getting an unofficial fork where someone might have introduced a keylogger, and a lot of engineers actually prefer to retribute authors for their software. They actually pay the service that someone has code-reviewed what was merged into the software they get. - If that's not enough for you, you can put a lock in your code and distribute the binary packages for a price. Yes people can remove the lock, but most companies aren't willing to recompile or even look at the code, and they'll pay. Plus, those that are willing to recompile already have their hands dirty, so they're twice closer to submitting improvements to your code ;) which is the meaning of "open-source". In conclusion, don't use supportedsource.org, and just sell the packaged copies of your software.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    This is especially true with "app stores"; it's sufficiently difficult to get apps into the Apple and Android stores, and sufficiently common to have adware-laden variants, that people will pay for an official version linked from the main project site. Also true on other platforms where people don't commonly have access to a compiler, such as Windows.

pritambaral 10y ago

One line summary: DRM-free, licensed-for-commercial-use, source code. I like the idea, strongly. But I am a bit apprehensive about how the projects that sign up for this may exploit it; especially considering how some projects put up a facade of being open while important bits and portions remain closed. On the other hand, if such a project becomes used to being paid for its visible-source bits, and paid a bit more for the hidden-source bits, I suspect they'd see little incentive to remain on the Supported Source platform and instead move entirely to hidden-source. "They're paying for it anyway. Why give away our code for cheaper, when we can keep it and charge more!"

jordigh 10y ago

From the FAQ: > Open source is public source that's monetarily free This isn't really true, as you really can charge for free software as much as you want, but you also can't forbid people from redistributing it without paying for it. This is why you can't download from RedHat's repos without paying for access, but also why CentOS can exist. (I have also heard that RedHat threatens to terminate your access if you exercise your redistribution rights, but I am not sure this is true.) I guess "supported source" is a statement that there is only room for one Red Hat in this world, and everyone else must restrict redistribution.

tsg94 10y ago

I love the idea and hope it succeeds. The problem is that programmers are cheap and won't pay for open source software.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
I'll happily pay for Open Source software, and have done so many times. This isn't Open Source, though.
- ffggvv 10y ago
  I'm curious, which ones?
  - ohstopitu 10y ago
    I've donated to Ubuntu (I felt it got me started on programming and interested enough in computers). Usually when I download their desktop OS (~$79/a year)
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    I've donated to half a dozen FOSS projects or organizations, and to a couple of individual FOSS developers. For two of those, I provide monthly donations, for more than the typical cost of a proprietary software license. I've paid for crowdfunding projects whose result got released as FOSS. I've also helped arrange corporate donations to FOSS projects.
- mwcampbell 10y ago
  The problem is that paying for open-source software isn't something that people do by default in the normal course of obtaining it, as one does when legally obtaining proprietary software, a book, music, etc. It's something that you have to deliberately go out of your way to do. Until that problem is solved, most users won't pay for open-source software, even if they'd have no problem doing so in principle.
  - davexunit 10y ago

shmerl 10y ago

Bad idea when it's presented as a substitute for FOSS. You can charge for support of FOSS based products as well.

the_hoser 10y ago
I agree that it shouldn't be called FOSS, but let's stop kidding ourselves about the 'charge for support' model. Few kinds of software require the kind of support that would keep a single developer off the street. Most of the types that do can rarely be supported by a single developer. I like the idea of a paid-source licensing program. I just don't know how it could work, long-term.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  One model that does work quite well: release code under a copyleft license, and charge for licenses/exceptions that allow linking to proprietary software. Next time you're thinking of releasing some code under an all-permissive license, consider using a copyleft license instead, which leaves you with options in the future.
  - Ghostium 10y ago
    The other option would be open core (crippled open source). However, I dislike both, I still would prefer supported source as the goal is more clear.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      I dislike the "open core" model as well. However, I don't see anything wrong with the copyleft, "release your source too or pay us" model. That provides very similar results: fellow developers can collaborate on the source, and companies building something they don't want to share can pay for an alternative license/exception so they don't have to. But instead of using a proprietary license to do so, that model uses a standard FOSS license, and works with the rest of the FOSS ecosystem.

leonnoel 10y ago

Is there a name for companies that release their code under an actual free license, but charge for other things like support? Companies that come to mind are flynn.io or sidekiq.org (both of which were recently on the front-page).

danielsiders 10y ago
Flynn co-founder here. Great question. We just consider ourselves to be a normal company that happens to build open source tools. We also try to make money in ways that don't interfere with the open nature of what we build. There are lots of different kinds of companies whose engineers primarily work on open source projects. In most cases where their core "product" is an open source technology they also sell commercial support, usually to large companies who need an SLA. Others (like us) sell managed services as well. We made the decision before we started the company to make anything we ever asked users to run on their own machines permissively licensed open source and just be careful with our trademark (like Mozilla is[1]). That leaves the door open for closed-source SaaS in the future but gives our users (and investors) a clear set of expectations about how and what we'll build. I think it's important for companies to be as clear as possible about how and why they license their code, what choices they'll make in the future, and what happens when the company changes hands. It would be great to see something like an "open source pledge" where founders/the company could contractually commit to either a final open source release before closing (like Parse did[2]) or staying open after being acquired (like Sun didn't after being acquired by Oracle [3]). [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/policy/ [2] http://blog.parse.com/announcements/introducing-parse-server-and-the-database-migration-tool/ http://blog.parse.com/announcements/introducing-parse-server... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system)#Post-Oracle_closed_source_.28Solaris_10_after_March_2010.2C_and_Solaris_11_.282011_and_later.29.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system)#Pos... edit: We tend to avoid calling ourselves an "open source company" which can get confused with the "open company" movement[4]. [4] http://www.opencompany.org/ http://www.opencompany.org/
dublinben 10y ago
Red Hat is a billion dollar company that does exactly that.

RKoutnik 10y ago

Interesting idea, though explaining the complications of licensing may cause problems when it comes to marketing. I've had a related idea for a while, setting up SaaS for FOSS maintainers to charge for a SLA (license/source is still open, corps essentially have some security that the project won't be abandoned). Is there anything out there like that?

jordigh 10y ago
Not quite with a SLA, but there's Bountysource: https://www.bountysource.com/ https://www.bountysource.com/

davexunit 10y ago

This site is a joke. It misunderstands what open source is, says it's "like" open source despite being completely incompatible. Open source isn't just about being able to view the source, it's about being able to redistribute it, modify it, and distribute those modifications.

jordigh 10y ago

Don't give away your free software and open source software either. Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it! https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html Just because it's free doesn't mean you have to put it on a public server for anyone to download. It's perfectly within the definitions of the open source and free software licenses to only distribute the software to paying customers. Or maybe it's impossible to do this now because the internet has made it trivial to redistribute software, I don't know.

fundamental 10y ago
Have you seen any projects successfully selling the source code of a fully open source application/library and making a non-trivial amount? I've seen some projects which receive some funding by charging for compiled binaries, but that revenue is for the additional service of compiling/supporting the use of pre-compiled binaries IMO.
- jordigh 10y ago
  No, but I have not seen anyone try either in a long time, not since Emacs source code used to cost 100 dollars. There are companies like Red Hat which charge you money for access to their repos, but I suppose you would argue that they're charging for building the binaries too. Everyone nowadays just puts up all of their source code online without asking money for it. Nobody even tries to sell it. I also think perhaps buying software in general is becoming a bit of an outdated idea. Everyone wants to sell subscriptions now.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
serge2k 10y ago
But they are entirely free to give it to anyone else.

edoceo 10y ago

It's similar to how M$ does their "open" source licenses

gregmac 10y ago

> The Supported Source License is comparable to a license you'd typically find with proprietary software. What makes a project Supported Source, instead of closed proprietary software, is that the code is online, open to pull requests, and there's a free trial. Can anyone explain how pull requests would work in this situation? Does part of the pull request sign the contribution over to the original license holder? How iron-clad is that? I can just imagine how much legal headache that could cause if a contributor decided that they owned part of the software. I'm also curious about accepting pull requests in this way. Implicitly, the project owner takes over responsibility. In this respect, regular open source projects benefit from a lack of "official" support to begin with: if the PR does something that causes a complete breakage at some point, it's considered par for the course and fixed in due time. If however, something breaks with commercial software, there is a pretty high burden on the vendor to fix it. I have worked in commercial software for years. It's a constant struggle as it is to say No to feature requests (for various reasons: not worthwhile, very hard to support, going in opposite direction of roadmap, etc). The worst are from the technical customers who say things like "why don't you just.." but don't understand the other ways the software is used (maybe by their competitors) with which their change is incompatible. I imagine it would be an order of magnitude harder to say No to a full fledged pull request, and there would be immense pressure to accept it, since after all, the work is already done.. except that also means taking on the burden of maintaining and supporting it. Anyone have experience accepting contributions from customers for commercial software?

forsaken 10y ago
I imagine it would work like a CLA in a lot of company sponsored open source. You retain copyright, but allow the owner to distribute it under their specified license terms. Or you could have a CLA that actually assigns copyright. The ongoing maintenance of the contribution is definitely an interesting question. That is the same with classic OSS projects too, though. I know a number of projects that are going towards making a pluggable core with plugins maintained externally to reduce this burden.

gtirloni 10y ago

Who is "Supported Source" ? Domain is behind privacy wall, no mention of a formal company/foundation name, etc. Looks just like an intermediary to sell licenses.

sjellis 10y ago

We need a better funding model for Open Source than a relatively small number of tech companies effectively paying everybody else's bills, but I don't think that this is it. Other people have talked about the developer side, but not-quite Open Source doesn't necessarily work for users, either. Open Source is often less about money than convenience: the difference between totally free and $1 is sometimes all the difference. If Product A is FOSS under a OSI-approved license you can use it everywhere: you can try it out at home and on personal projects, install it on your machines at work, perhaps try and get your company to standardize on it, and work with third-party services that use exactly the same software. Once there's a form or a fee then there's meetings, and paperwork, and hassle.

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

Ok crazy idea but we do need to solve this OSS problem somehow. My personal view is that governments should take the lead in paying for development of OSS (http://www.oss4gov.org/manifesto http://www.oss4gov.org/manifesto - full disclosure I run this site (badly))

andrewchambers 10y ago

Tbh, I find some of the complaints in this thread about it not being totally free irritating. When food, houses and healthcare are all free, maybe all code can be free too. (But i don't think a society has ever succeeded by doing that.) I personally don't have a problem with a license that allows a user to modify source code, and run modified source code, but only after paying a fee. It seems to me DOOM mods work like this already, the code is free, but the game resources like textures etc can only be used after paying for a license. Id software gets paid, people can hack all day on the game, seems like win win to me.

nixos 10y ago
The problem is that it doesn't help. Commercial open source tends to be done for two reasons: 1. Common goal development. Several companies needs a UNIX. Rather than do all the development themselves, they work together. That's how Linux works. 2. Backup if original company's strategic goals move from your goal. Here, neither work as you can't cooperate with others due to licensing issues.
- andrewchambers 10y ago
  If the license doesn't allow applying or distributing third party patches I would be annoyed. If it allows it provided each party has paid for a license I would be happy.
  - jrpt 10y ago
    It says right here, https://supportedsource.org/definition https://supportedsource.org/definition "Modifications. The license must permit modifications to the source code." But you also can't just take parts of the code and redistribute it for free, because "Restricted Uses. The license should include restricted uses, such as disallowing resale or sublicensing." The point isn't to prevent people from customizing their use of the software. The point is to create a system where developers get paid and projects are financially sustainable, instead of being abandoned or barely maintained.

mikekchar 10y ago

This is such a political topic that I know I should keep my mouth shut. But, I've had this brewing in my head for a long time and now's as good a time as any to put it down in digital ink. I remember seeing an interview with Karl Lagerfeld. As many people know, there is no copyright on fashion designs. That means that when he makes a design and sells it, virtually the next day there are knockoffs in the market. They asked him if this upset him. He said (and I paraphrase), "No. People who would buy those knockoffs are not my customers". In other words, if you don't care about the Karl Lagerfeld brand, or if you don't have enough money to afford his brand, you might buy a knock off bag. This doesn't really affect his sales because you wouldn't have bought his bag anyway. Similarly, people who want to buy his bag, will not buy a knockoff -- no matter how cheap it is. They are his customers. In the same way, as a software author, it is not actually difficult to get paid for free software. The main thing is you have to ask to get paid. If you are the author of a major piece of software, people will pay you for that work. Those people are your customers. The main thing (very much like fashion) is that only some software will attract paying customers. This isn't really a problem with the license. As a programmer, locking your customers in so that they can only turn to you for help is not necessarily going to increase your sales. What you really need is exposure. You need to be popular. This is where open source works well. With open source, you have a very low barrier of entry for your potential customers. They also have a very low risk profile. They can use your code, or even parts of your code and if it doesn't work out, they can replace it cheaply. Again, as a programmer without access to lots of marketing money to bring in customers, I think this is going to help you out a lot better than locking your customers in to your platform. The key here is that once you have exposure and your project is popular, then you can ask your customers to pay for new work. Experience has shown that people who can afford to pay, and who value your work will actually pay. Just like the fashion industry. Where things diverge is when you are not a programmer. Let's say, you do not want to make money from writing code. Instead you want to make money from code as an asset. You have a bunch of source code that is already written and you want to treat it like it was a bushel of apples (err... a kind of endless bushel of apples, since you can sell it over and over again). In that case, you absolutely do not want to allow competition -- because anybody can sell a bushel of apples (endless bushel's of apples are especially appealing, it seems). So, if you are saying to yourself, "How do I get paid for writing free software", I really don't think this is going to work (especially since it isn't free software!) You are raising the barrier to entry for your customers. This is going to make your project less attractive, not more. The only people this can potentially help are non-programmers who want to reduce competition with their proprietary software.