4 ms·

None of OSI's Open Source licenses (including AGPL) protect creators financial interest in the cloud first world. Period. I want to issue "View and Internal Us

None of OSI's Open Source licenses (including AGPL) protect creators financial interest in the cloud first world. Period. I want to issue "View and Internal Use License" for my work. Anyone can view the source code, modify, and use the software for their own benefit as they see fit. Under no circumstances can anyone sell/re-distribute/host the paid version of software or any derivative thereof. Why can't OSI create such a license? I understand the spirit of OSI is to foster more usage of open source software. I admire it. But probably a LOT of open source software is not getting built in the world because it's not possible for everyone to spend few months/years of their prime without any financial outcome (not even a possibility of it). I'm a developer who spent 3 FULL days reading up licenses for my indie project [1] that I aim to make some money with. Not even a single license was adequate to protect me from large teams/companies if the software were to become popular. I resorted to only open sourcing a required critical library [2]. [1] https://www.nurtch.com/ https://www.nurtch.com/ [2] https://github.com/Nurtch/rubix https://github.com/Nurtch/rubix

the_af 8y ago
The license you describe, while definitely useful, is not open source by any meaningful definition of the concept. I don't mean "not OSI open source", but "not open source as the term has evolved". Similar licenses have been tried (see Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative) and you can definitely devise one yourself and no-one can stop you. The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason: it's not open source.
- amirathi 8y ago
  > The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason What is that good reason? Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem?
  - the_af 8y ago
    > Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Exactly, it's not. > How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem? Whether it's bad is a value judgment I can't answer; it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source.
    - amirathi 8y ago
      Do you not see any problem with that? Companies who are good at commercialisation gets all the dough for work created by small group of inventors. Is protecting inventors interest not important? Isn't this negatively affecting the ecosystem where there's less motivation for inventors to create open source software in the first place? > it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source. This can be solved easily. The "View and Internal Use License" can allow redistribution under the same license (verbatim).
      - the_af 8y ago
        I'm not going to debate open source with you, because as you can imagine this is a topic that's been debated for decades, and as any debate that mixes philosophical and technical issues, it's definitely neither easy nor clear cut. Open source is mostly about user rights (making things more confusing, a user is sometimes also a developer!). By restricting the users' right to resell or redistribute the source code of your software, you are effectively making it not open source. If you think an open source license is not in your best interest because of these rights, it'd be totally understandable if you decide not to use one. > This can be solved easily. The "View and Internal Use License" can allow redistribution under the same license (verbatim). I think you'll find once you add all the necessary provisions for adding users rights, you'll end up with an open source license :) I'd be wary of saying "this can be solved easily": if you follow any kind of debate about software licenses, proprietary or otherwise, you'll see there's nothing easy about them. Any license that is more complex than "do whatever you want with this" is probably not easy.
        amirathi 8y ago
  - e12e 8y ago
    It would be closer to "source available". See eg tarsnap. > Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Roughly (IMNHO) there's Stallman/gnu style Free software, which is about user freedoms (freedom to run the software being freedom zero). And the Raymond/cathedral vs bazaar "open source", which is about developer freedom - the freedom to learn from and build (in also a business sense) on other software (mit/bsd/apache etc). The distinction isn't absolute, a gnu "user" is certainly a developer too - but "open source" isn't as concerned with user freedom - especially freedom zero. With drm, signed bootloaders and trusted computing - it's easy to see a world where even access to source code and compiler tool chain doesn't guarantee the freedom to run a) binary software from a vendor, nor b) software binaries you make yourself. So gnu/free software isn't primarily about preventing commercialization (see eg: walnut creek software and their CD rom/floppy shipping business) - it's about maintaining user freedom. And many believe the only real way to legally protect end user freedoms is through means like gpl/AGPL. In a sense gnu is pessimistic free software (what if I can't (legally) access a c compiler and kernel header files - how can I even build a new printer driver then?) - open source is more libertarian/free market optimistic: go ahead build a firewall appliance from this distribution and lock your customers out - there's plenty other folk that will keep sharing and caring. And if you develop a cool, high performance userspace network stack we'd love for you to share - but do as you please) Neither is about preventing commercialization - both are about securing access and openness. Now, they do work against certain types of legal mechanisms that are associated with commercialization, like patents and copyright. Lastly,in a world with copyright, "source available" can be very dangerous to developers (this include text books with unclear licenses for code examples). What happens when I copy your btree implementation? You did show it to me. Was I supposed to forget about it?).
- mikl 8y ago
  The whole point of open source is that OSS code can be used (and modified) for whatever use anyone wants. Copy-left compels you to share your modifications, but does not limit you from using the software however you please.
  - the_af 8y ago
    Exactly. Which is why amirathi's proposed license is not open source.
darkarmani 8y ago
Just close your software then. Open source isn't for you.

the_af 8y ago

The license you describe, while definitely useful, is not open source by any meaningful definition of the concept. I don't mean "not OSI open source", but "not open source as the term has evolved". Similar licenses have been tried (see Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative) and you can definitely devise one yourself and no-one can stop you. The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason: it's not open source.

amirathi 8y ago
> The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason What is that good reason? Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem?
- the_af 8y ago
  > Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Exactly, it's not. > How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem? Whether it's bad is a value judgment I can't answer; it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source.
  - amirathi 8y ago
    Do you not see any problem with that? Companies who are good at commercialisation gets all the dough for work created by small group of inventors. Is protecting inventors interest not important? Isn't this negatively affecting the ecosystem where there's less motivation for inventors to create open source software in the first place? > it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source. This can be solved easily. The "View and Internal Use License" can allow redistribution under the same license (verbatim).
    - the_af 8y ago
      I'm not going to debate open source with you, because as you can imagine this is a topic that's been debated for decades, and as any debate that mixes philosophical and technical issues, it's definitely neither easy nor clear cut. Open source is mostly about user rights (making things more confusing, a user is sometimes also a developer!). By restricting the users' right to resell or redistribute the source code of your software, you are effectively making it not open source. If you think an open source license is not in your best interest because of these rights, it'd be totally understandable if you decide not to use one. > This can be solved easily. The "View and Internal Use License" can allow redistribution under the same license (verbatim). I think you'll find once you add all the necessary provisions for adding users rights, you'll end up with an open source license :) I'd be wary of saying "this can be solved easily": if you follow any kind of debate about software licenses, proprietary or otherwise, you'll see there's nothing easy about them. Any license that is more complex than "do whatever you want with this" is probably not easy.
      - amirathi 8y ago
- e12e 8y ago
  It would be closer to "source available". See eg tarsnap. > Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Roughly (IMNHO) there's Stallman/gnu style Free software, which is about user freedoms (freedom to run the software being freedom zero). And the Raymond/cathedral vs bazaar "open source", which is about developer freedom - the freedom to learn from and build (in also a business sense) on other software (mit/bsd/apache etc). The distinction isn't absolute, a gnu "user" is certainly a developer too - but "open source" isn't as concerned with user freedom - especially freedom zero. With drm, signed bootloaders and trusted computing - it's easy to see a world where even access to source code and compiler tool chain doesn't guarantee the freedom to run a) binary software from a vendor, nor b) software binaries you make yourself. So gnu/free software isn't primarily about preventing commercialization (see eg: walnut creek software and their CD rom/floppy shipping business) - it's about maintaining user freedom. And many believe the only real way to legally protect end user freedoms is through means like gpl/AGPL. In a sense gnu is pessimistic free software (what if I can't (legally) access a c compiler and kernel header files - how can I even build a new printer driver then?) - open source is more libertarian/free market optimistic: go ahead build a firewall appliance from this distribution and lock your customers out - there's plenty other folk that will keep sharing and caring. And if you develop a cool, high performance userspace network stack we'd love for you to share - but do as you please) Neither is about preventing commercialization - both are about securing access and openness. Now, they do work against certain types of legal mechanisms that are associated with commercialization, like patents and copyright. Lastly,in a world with copyright, "source available" can be very dangerous to developers (this include text books with unclear licenses for code examples). What happens when I copy your btree implementation? You did show it to me. Was I supposed to forget about it?).
mikl 8y ago
The whole point of open source is that OSS code can be used (and modified) for whatever use anyone wants. Copy-left compels you to share your modifications, but does not limit you from using the software however you please.
- the_af 8y ago
  Exactly. Which is why amirathi's proposed license is not open source.

darkarmani 8y ago

Just close your software then. Open source isn't for you.