4 ms·
That model falls apart from the start. If anyone is savvy enough to compile from source then why buy it? If the code is free, then, I don't see how they'd even
by FallsApart 6y ago
That model falls apart from the start. If anyone is savvy enough to compile from source then why buy it? If the code is free, then, I don't see how they'd even bother to pay for it; it being the compiled version; of course.
It the source is out they can't hardly enforce anything or much. People will just go to github and compile it for free.
- joshuaissac 6y ago> People will just go to github and compile it for free. I think open-source-ux was talking about software where the customers would be companies, where there is comparatively less of an appetite for using pirated or unlicensed software.
- open-source-ux 6y ago"That model falls apart from the start" Sure, there may be some individuals who will refuse to pay, but companies will not risk legal violations by not adhering to the licence conditions for the app. In fact, the 'source-only' model is nothing new. Back in the late 1990s, developers used to sell UI and data components for Delphi with full source code. Even though code wasn't published to public code repositorities, there was nothing to stop individuals posting those components to the internet for others to grab without purchasing. Even so, developers were able to successfully sell their 'source-only' components to other developers and companies.
- _frkl 6y agoThat's why have licenses that forbid certain usages. Obviously those are not 'Open Source' as defined by OSI. If you use such software in ways forbidden by the license, you are liable. Companies would usually be very careful, and would not knowingly ignore the license terms.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoThe people that are doing that wouldn't have bought it anyway. Most businesses that are legit will pay for what is required to be paid for to remain legal and not get sued.