3 ms·

A good approach would be to license your work under GPL3/AGPL3 and charge a fee for a commercial license.

by zokeia 9y ago

zaarn 9y ago
That approach only really works if you have sufficient adoption in enterprise/commercial. Doesn't really work if you target the hobbyist market, which will simply not bother with the commercial license.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >Doesn't really work if you target the hobbyist market The hobbyist market isn't typically a great place to make money from anyway.
  - zaarn 9y ago
    Yes. But making any money is preferable to making no money from your OSS project, no?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
      It really depends. Sometimes the money is not compensated by the support "fun".
      - zaarn 9y ago
        There is no support "fun", atleast not from my side. I do not feel like anyone is entitled to me supporting the application unless I am specifically paid for that. If I see such comments they will get removed and the offender banned very quickly.
- zokeia 9y ago
  The hobbyist market doesn't need a proprietary exception.
cdancette 9y ago
Companies will expect some kind of support if they pay
- Xylakant 9y ago
  Well, if they pay for the support and their request falls into an agreed-upon SLA, why not? This allows improving the software, keeping it open source and may provide a living wage for the maintainers all at the same time.
  - cdancette 9y ago
    Yeah I agree. But maintainers don't always have time to support software, and can't really leave their jobs until they earn enough. Maybe they could outsource support, any idea if something exists for this?
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      It's up to the maintainer to offer up an SLA and price it accordingly. Try to figure out the SLA you get for your windows or office license: Many companies would already be happy with "our payment places this otherwise uninteresting issue that we desperately need fixed at the top of the queue", even if no guarantee for a time frame was attached. If a company expects 24x7 with short response times, price it accordingly. If you find customers willing to pay for this, great, you just validated a market :)
rplnt 9y ago
It's in the list (with pros and cons).
craigsmansion 9y ago
> for a commercial license. I know this feels like nit-picking, but you likely mean "proprietary license." Just because the GPL encourages a different style of commerce than most are used to for software, doesn't mean it's not commercial. As for charging fees for additional proprietary licenses, this link explains Richard Stallman's views on it: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions (It's likely not what you expect him to say)
- zaarn 9y ago
  I've atleast once seen "commercial license" to mean "MIT License", so it doesn't always have to mean "proprietary"; it can just as well mean "more business friendly license"
- Mouse47 9y ago
  As an outsider to the whole open-source culture, this line struck me as...strange: >"When I first heard of the practice of selling exceptions, I asked myself whether the practice is ethical. If someone buys an exception to embed a program in a larger proprietary program, he's doing something wrong (namely, making proprietary software)." This might be a kneejerk reaction, but why does he feel the world is entitled to the labor of a programmer for "free"? What's his alternative business/labor model? Is it compatible with capitalism? What am I missing here? I'm reading through some of the philosophy on gnu.org to try and sympathize but it still seems insane to me: "When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS [Service as a Software Substitute], first of all you do wrong to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise at all. There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly on others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom. (Google Hangouts have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even on someone else's computer." You're free to stop using Skype any time if you don't like the terms. When I use the subway, aren't I surrendering my freedom since I can't get off whenever I want? So are subways that don't stop whenever any person demands it unethical? What is this guy smoking?
Bogdanp 9y ago
I've done this with Dramatiq[1]. The most surprising thing to me about this approach was how receptive companies are to it and how negatively some people on the internet seem to react to it. Inevitably, whenever the library comes up for discussion, one of the biggest topics ends up being the license and how the project is going to suffer for it. [1]: https://dramatiq.io https://dramatiq.io
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  That's really interesting. I was thinking of trying this but was a little put off by the massively negative reaction to AGPL you get online. I think a lot of it comes from people who would like to use the software in their open source projects but are irritated that it isn't compatible with their license. Roughly (range-wise) many commercial customers do you have?
- zokeia 9y ago
  Looking at your EULA (https://dramatiq.io/EULA.html https://dramatiq.io/EULA.html), did you have it drafted by lawyer? I think I might need one for my projects but I'm not sure if I should pay a lawyer just yet.

A good approach would be to license your work under GPL3/AGPL3 and charge a fee for a commercial license.

by zokeia 9y ago

A good approach would be to license your work under GPL3/AGPL3 and charge a fee for a commercial license.

That approach only really works if you have sufficient adoption in enterprise/commercial. Doesn't really work if you target the hobbyist market, which will simply not bother with the commercial license.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
crdoconnor 9y ago
>Doesn't really work if you target the hobbyist market The hobbyist market isn't typically a great place to make money from anyway.
- zaarn 9y ago
  Yes. But making any money is preferable to making no money from your OSS project, no?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
    It really depends. Sometimes the money is not compensated by the support "fun".
    - zaarn 9y ago
      There is no support "fun", atleast not from my side. I do not feel like anyone is entitled to me supporting the application unless I am specifically paid for that. If I see such comments they will get removed and the offender banned very quickly.
zokeia 9y ago
The hobbyist market doesn't need a proprietary exception.

cdancette 9y ago

Companies will expect some kind of support if they pay

Xylakant 9y ago
Well, if they pay for the support and their request falls into an agreed-upon SLA, why not? This allows improving the software, keeping it open source and may provide a living wage for the maintainers all at the same time.
- cdancette 9y ago
  Yeah I agree. But maintainers don't always have time to support software, and can't really leave their jobs until they earn enough. Maybe they could outsource support, any idea if something exists for this?
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    It's up to the maintainer to offer up an SLA and price it accordingly. Try to figure out the SLA you get for your windows or office license: Many companies would already be happy with "our payment places this otherwise uninteresting issue that we desperately need fixed at the top of the queue", even if no guarantee for a time frame was attached. If a company expects 24x7 with short response times, price it accordingly. If you find customers willing to pay for this, great, you just validated a market :)

rplnt 9y ago

It's in the list (with pros and cons).

craigsmansion 9y ago

> for a commercial license. I know this feels like nit-picking, but you likely mean "proprietary license." Just because the GPL encourages a different style of commerce than most are used to for software, doesn't mean it's not commercial. As for charging fees for additional proprietary licenses, this link explains Richard Stallman's views on it: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions (It's likely not what you expect him to say)

zaarn 9y ago
I've atleast once seen "commercial license" to mean "MIT License", so it doesn't always have to mean "proprietary"; it can just as well mean "more business friendly license"
Mouse47 9y ago
As an outsider to the whole open-source culture, this line struck me as...strange: >"When I first heard of the practice of selling exceptions, I asked myself whether the practice is ethical. If someone buys an exception to embed a program in a larger proprietary program, he's doing something wrong (namely, making proprietary software)." This might be a kneejerk reaction, but why does he feel the world is entitled to the labor of a programmer for "free"? What's his alternative business/labor model? Is it compatible with capitalism? What am I missing here? I'm reading through some of the philosophy on gnu.org to try and sympathize but it still seems insane to me: "When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS [Service as a Software Substitute], first of all you do wrong to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise at all. There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly on others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom. (Google Hangouts have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even on someone else's computer." You're free to stop using Skype any time if you don't like the terms. When I use the subway, aren't I surrendering my freedom since I can't get off whenever I want? So are subways that don't stop whenever any person demands it unethical? What is this guy smoking?

Bogdanp 9y ago

I've done this with Dramatiq[1]. The most surprising thing to me about this approach was how receptive companies are to it and how negatively some people on the internet seem to react to it. Inevitably, whenever the library comes up for discussion, one of the biggest topics ends up being the license and how the project is going to suffer for it. [1]: https://dramatiq.io https://dramatiq.io

crdoconnor 9y ago
That's really interesting. I was thinking of trying this but was a little put off by the massively negative reaction to AGPL you get online. I think a lot of it comes from people who would like to use the software in their open source projects but are irritated that it isn't compatible with their license. Roughly (range-wise) many commercial customers do you have?
zokeia 9y ago
Looking at your EULA (https://dramatiq.io/EULA.html https://dramatiq.io/EULA.html), did you have it drafted by lawyer? I think I might need one for my projects but I'm not sure if I should pay a lawyer just yet.