4 ms·

Selling open source software itself is rather pointless - anyone can copy the code for free and it's not even wrong do so. You sell services based on the code a

Selling open source software itself is rather pointless - anyone can copy the code for free and it's not even wrong do so. You sell services based on the code and on changing the code - not gating access to the code itself. You don't "sell OSS" - you sell around it and make money from it - not by it. It's unsurprising people continue to be confused on this point if we continue to be so unclear about it on the average.

kiba 7y ago
Users don't care about the code. They care about convenience.
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  You're damn right. Make it easy for users to use your code, to get help when they need it and don't entrap them via lock-in mechanisms so they can leave when they need to leave and they'll beat a path to your door.
- m-p-3 7y ago
  A good example is Synergy (Symless). The code is open-souce and freely accessible, but the compiled binaries are available for a fee. Nothing stops you from grabbing the code and compile it, or you can pay for the convenience.
sargun 7y ago
You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. OSS doesn’t mean free (as in beer) either. If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS.
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  > If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS. No. Absolutely not. Licences which add restrictions based on field of endeavour are not Open Source licences. Period. https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd Point 6. Period. > You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. Yes, of course you can sell the service of providing compiled binaries. Everyone will be annoyed if you charge for the builds of your software - but that's your prerogative. Someone else will just provide a free unofficial build (See CentOS, etc) if it's useful. Suit yourself. shrug
  - throwaway35784 7y ago
    We should discriminate against evil. Period.
    - justinjlynn 7y ago
      Of course you shouldn't contribute to evil as you see it. Contributing to that against which you fight is stupid. The problem with applying that to licences is that they have to apply everywhere, to everyone, equally. Who defines what evil is? You? Me? The person with the most power? The person with the least? How do you measure that? Is there even an absolute definition of evil? I seriously doubt such a definition exists. I'd go so far as to say I hope one doesn't - thinking of the implications. I wish you the best of luck - because that's all it'll be; in terms of denying evil access to your software. Of course, your licence choice matters because we all know that evil follows all the rules - especially those which don't suit its purposes. /s
      - throwaway35784 7y ago
        That's why my license choice is closed source.
        justinjlynn 7y ago
        Suit yourself - though, if I'm being honest, I'm wondering why you're even in this thread.
        throwaway35784 7y ago
        I'm keeping an open mind. You haven't changed it. I did get more evidence that open sourcing software doesn't pay the bills. I don't know why you're so angry about that. Calling people names. Implying people don't even have a right to speak on a topic. Something is emotionally driving you. You're deeply resentful.
        7y ago
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  Discrimination against fields of endeavor (like commercial use) in the license means it's not Open Source software anymore.
JohnFen 7y ago
> Selling open source software itself is rather pointless It's not, really. I've made money selling a few of my own OSS products over the years. There's no need to gate the code to do this.

kiba 7y ago

Users don't care about the code. They care about convenience.

justinjlynn 7y ago
You're damn right. Make it easy for users to use your code, to get help when they need it and don't entrap them via lock-in mechanisms so they can leave when they need to leave and they'll beat a path to your door.
m-p-3 7y ago
A good example is Synergy (Symless). The code is open-souce and freely accessible, but the compiled binaries are available for a fee. Nothing stops you from grabbing the code and compile it, or you can pay for the convenience.

sargun 7y ago

You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. OSS doesn’t mean free (as in beer) either. If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS.

justinjlynn 7y ago
> If you have a license that says that you must pay money to operate it commercially, that’s another way to make money from OSS. No. Absolutely not. Licences which add restrictions based on field of endeavour are not Open Source licences. Period. https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd Point 6. Period. > You can sell the compiled artifacts as well. Yes, of course you can sell the service of providing compiled binaries. Everyone will be annoyed if you charge for the builds of your software - but that's your prerogative. Someone else will just provide a free unofficial build (See CentOS, etc) if it's useful. Suit yourself. shrug
- throwaway35784 7y ago
  We should discriminate against evil. Period.
  - justinjlynn 7y ago
    Of course you shouldn't contribute to evil as you see it. Contributing to that against which you fight is stupid. The problem with applying that to licences is that they have to apply everywhere, to everyone, equally. Who defines what evil is? You? Me? The person with the most power? The person with the least? How do you measure that? Is there even an absolute definition of evil? I seriously doubt such a definition exists. I'd go so far as to say I hope one doesn't - thinking of the implications. I wish you the best of luck - because that's all it'll be; in terms of denying evil access to your software. Of course, your licence choice matters because we all know that evil follows all the rules - especially those which don't suit its purposes. /s
    - throwaway35784 7y ago
      That's why my license choice is closed source.
      - justinjlynn 7y ago
        Suit yourself - though, if I'm being honest, I'm wondering why you're even in this thread.
        throwaway35784 7y ago
        I'm keeping an open mind. You haven't changed it. I did get more evidence that open sourcing software doesn't pay the bills. I don't know why you're so angry about that. Calling people names. Implying people don't even have a right to speak on a topic. Something is emotionally driving you. You're deeply resentful.
        7y ago
EvanAnderson 7y ago
Discrimination against fields of endeavor (like commercial use) in the license means it's not Open Source software anymore.

JohnFen 7y ago

> Selling open source software itself is rather pointless It's not, really. I've made money selling a few of my own OSS products over the years. There's no need to gate the code to do this.