3 ms·

If you want to work full-time on open source, then you need to treat it like a job. Either find an employer who will pay you, or start a business and become you

If you want to work full-time on open source, then you need to treat it like a job. Either find an employer who will pay you, or start a business and become your own employer. One way to start an open source business is to use a public/private licensing model, a.k.a. dual licensing with an 'open' license and a commercial license. The key is that you can have readable, modifiable, redistributable source code, without universally giving your work away for free. Instead, charge a fee for the right to use your software to create proprietary software, or for the right to use your software in a commercial context. License Zero is designed to support developers pursuing this kind of business model. There are two public licenses, Parity and Prosperity, and there's a payment platform to charge for private licenses. https://licensezero.com/ https://licensezero.com/ Parity is a copy-left license, and is best suited to developer tools and software libraries. https://paritylicense.com/ https://paritylicense.com/ Prosperity is a non-commercial license, and is best suited to end-user applications. https://prosperitylicense.com/ https://prosperitylicense.com/ The Sustain podcast has an interview with the creator of License Zero, Kyle Mitchell. https://sustain.codefund.fm/29 https://sustain.codefund.fm/29

Freso 6y ago
I don’t see any of those licenses listed on https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and it took me a bunch of digging in the license-review mailing list archives to find when it was submitted for consideration (most recently anyway, sounds like it was submitted previously too): https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-September/003091.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.... The consensus on that list is that License Zero violates certain tenets of the Open Source principles, and as such software released under a License Zero license is not open source software. By extension, this means that getting to work full time on License Zero software means that you’re not working full time on open source software.
- orlandohill 6y ago
  I don't care about other people's definitions of the term open source. To me, software is open if I can read the source, modify the source, and redistribute modified or unmodified copies. If I have to pay to use it when creating proprietary software, or within a commercial context, then so be it. It makes sense that the people most closely deriving financial benefit from a piece of software should be the ones to fund its continued development and maintenance. The FSF's concept of four freedoms always appealed to me, but the problem is that freedom 0 allows people to take away the freedom of others, because it allows the creation of proprietary software. The Parity Public License doesn't have that hypocrisy. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Freso 6y ago

I don’t see any of those licenses listed on https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and it took me a bunch of digging in the license-review mailing list archives to find when it was submitted for consideration (most recently anyway, sounds like it was submitted previously too): https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-September/003091.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.... The consensus on that list is that License Zero violates certain tenets of the Open Source principles, and as such software released under a License Zero license is not open source software. By extension, this means that getting to work full time on License Zero software means that you’re not working full time on open source software.

orlandohill 6y ago
I don't care about other people's definitions of the term open source. To me, software is open if I can read the source, modify the source, and redistribute modified or unmodified copies. If I have to pay to use it when creating proprietary software, or within a commercial context, then so be it. It makes sense that the people most closely deriving financial benefit from a piece of software should be the ones to fund its continued development and maintenance. The FSF's concept of four freedoms always appealed to me, but the problem is that freedom 0 allows people to take away the freedom of others, because it allows the creation of proprietary software. The Parity Public License doesn't have that hypocrisy. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html