6 ms·

It's not at all hard to have a license where something is free for noncommercial or limited commercial usage, and premium otherwise. This is an extremely typica

by rjf72 8y ago

It's not at all hard to have a license where something is free for noncommercial or limited commercial usage, and premium otherwise. This is an extremely typical model for many products today whose licenses you could use as inspiration. See for instance things like Microsoft's Visual Studio. And the nice thing is that contract law is really quite powerful and very much on your side when it comes to enforcement. You don't need Microsoft's legal department to enforce your rights. In my opinion I feel like the real issue is that many in the open source community want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to put ideas out there ostensibly for free and be part of the social communal movement, but when those ideas are actually used to generate value - they want to see the checks roll in. That's just not how it works. Look at products that are funded by donations. There are some exceptions, but the general rule is that they end up grossly underfunded and have to be more and more aggressive with requests for donations just to stay afloat. If people want payment, then demand payment. If you want to give away something for free, don't ever expect to get paid for it.

toyg 8y ago
It's not unreasonable to wish for a middle ground where small actors don't have to pay and big actors do. > a license where something is free for noncommercial or limited commercial usage, and premium otherwise. That's basically what Mongo have switched to. Unfortunately, this broke other bits of community, because playing with licenses is actually not that easy. My point is that, maybe, we need a new license that can reflect the changed times. GPL 3 wanted to be that license, but it doesn't look like it succeeded. The new licenses attempted piecemeal by this or that company (like Mongo) will always fail to cut it, because the are typically not written by people with significant experience and knowledge in this particular field (license-writing). Maybe it's time for interested companies and expert stakeholders (FSF etc) to come together and try to agree on something that could move us all forward.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- helen___keller 8y ago
  Just to be clear, the FSF does not agree with your distinction. The FSF only endorses free software, which means free for all users, commercial or noncommercial ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html ): >Proprietary software is another name for nonfree software. In the past we subdivided nonfree software into “semifree software”, which could be modified and redistributed noncommercially, and “proprietary software”, which could not be. But we have dropped that distinction and now use “proprietary software” as synonymous with nonfree software. >The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.
  - toyg 8y ago
    The FSF doesn't have a monopoly on the sentiment of open-source communities. Their principles were developed in a very different scenario, which is the point of my comment.
    - helen___keller 8y ago
      I just meant specifically for your call to action > Maybe it's time for interested companies and expert stakeholders (FSF etc) That the FSF likely would have no interest in participating in such an activity since it would betray their core principles (regardless of whether you or i feel that this principle is sound)
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > Maybe it's time for interested companies and expert stakeholders (FSF etc) to come together and try to agree on something that could move us all forward. Expecting the FSF and RMS in particular to negotiate away the core freedoms (just so that businesses can make profits, no less!) strikes me as the height of futility.

by rjf72 8y ago

toyg 8y ago

It's not unreasonable to wish for a middle ground where small actors don't have to pay and big actors do. > a license where something is free for noncommercial or limited commercial usage, and premium otherwise. That's basically what Mongo have switched to. Unfortunately, this broke other bits of community, because playing with licenses is actually not that easy. My point is that, maybe, we need a new license that can reflect the changed times. GPL 3 wanted to be that license, but it doesn't look like it succeeded. The new licenses attempted piecemeal by this or that company (like Mongo) will always fail to cut it, because the are typically not written by people with significant experience and knowledge in this particular field (license-writing). Maybe it's time for interested companies and expert stakeholders (FSF etc) to come together and try to agree on something that could move us all forward.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
helen___keller 8y ago
Just to be clear, the FSF does not agree with your distinction. The FSF only endorses free software, which means free for all users, commercial or noncommercial ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html ): >Proprietary software is another name for nonfree software. In the past we subdivided nonfree software into “semifree software”, which could be modified and redistributed noncommercially, and “proprietary software”, which could not be. But we have dropped that distinction and now use “proprietary software” as synonymous with nonfree software. >The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.
- toyg 8y ago
  The FSF doesn't have a monopoly on the sentiment of open-source communities. Their principles were developed in a very different scenario, which is the point of my comment.
  - helen___keller 8y ago
    I just meant specifically for your call to action > Maybe it's time for interested companies and expert stakeholders (FSF etc) That the FSF likely would have no interest in participating in such an activity since it would betray their core principles (regardless of whether you or i feel that this principle is sound)
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> Maybe it's time for interested companies and expert stakeholders (FSF etc) to come together and try to agree on something that could move us all forward. Expecting the FSF and RMS in particular to negotiate away the core freedoms (just so that businesses can make profits, no less!) strikes me as the height of futility.