3 ms·

I’m working on an open source search alternative to Algolia, called Typesense [1], with a hosted SaaS option [2]. So our business model is very similar to Plaus

by jabo 6y ago

I’m working on an open source search alternative to Algolia, called Typesense [1], with a hosted SaaS option [2]. So our business model is very similar to Plausible. re: OSS licensing, we use GPL and have been very hesitant about using something like AGPL. I’ve personally seen developers not use projects only because they’re AGPL. Even GPL seems to scare some developers. Question for HN: have you recently wanted to use an OSS project in your stack and then stayed away from using it only because of its license? If so, what license was it and what about the license prevented you from using it? [1] https://github.com/typesense/typesense https://github.com/typesense/typesense [2] https://cloud.typesense.org https://cloud.typesense.org

blendergeek 6y ago
> re: OSS licensing, we use GPL and have been very hesitant about using something like AGPL. I’ve personally seen developers not use projects only because they’re AGPL. Even GPL seems to scare some developers. Do you think it is more likely to scare your potential paying customers, your potential contributors, or potential freeloaders? I expect that is likely to scare people in this order: 1. Freeloaders 2. Contributors 3. Customers If I have a Free Software project, I want to scare freeloaders while still welcoming potential customers and contributors. I know its a balancing act, but I like the AGPL.
- jabo 6y ago
  Unfortunately it seems to scare people in all those categories. People typically start using it for free and over time, some of them become contributors and/or paying customers. So if a license scares the people who start using it for free, it then inherently hurts contributions and customers long term.
- TAForObvReasons 6y ago
  The order is closer to 1. Contributors 2. Customers 3. Freeloaders The type of person who is likely to contribute will be the first to look at the license, and AGPL will rightfully worry them. For the open source funnel, the potential customers start off as "freeloaders". They are more likely to look at the license in the first place because they are more likely to be using the software in a commercial setting and have to worry about licensing. The AGPL concerns hit them first. The freeloaders will just switch over to a more liberally licensed project.
  - teleclimber 6y ago
    > ...and AGPL will rightfully worry them. Not deeply familiar with AGPL. Why is it bad for contributors?
    - blendergeek 6y ago
      The idea that AGPL will "rightfully worry" potential contributors is FUD spread by Google to decrease uptake of the AGPL. AGPL rightfully worries potential freeloaders such as Amazon and Google that want to profit off of proprietary forks of Free Software packages without contributing back to the community.
numair 6y ago
If I was a savvy corporate customer, I’d be more concerned that you’d get AWS’ed by a too-permissive license, which would either put you out of business or prevent you from growing. From that POV, being stuck with a dead or stale product from a dead or stale company is far worse than being stuck with a dead or stale product from Microsoft. Curious to know how you’re solving this — we should come up with some best practices in this area for everyone to adopt!
- jabo 6y ago
  “Getting AWS’ed”, that should go in the dictionary! In companies I’ve worked at in the past, during every round of fund raising, as part of the due diligence, lawyers would ask for the licenses of all software packages we use. And when AGPL showed up in the list, they’d specifically ask how it’s integrated with the rest of the system, and evaluate it with more scrutiny. In hindsight, this makes total sense - they were just trying to make sure we were compliant with what AGPL calls for. But the fact that AGPL software called for extra scrutiny from lawyers, became a stumbling block and added just enough friction to adopting additional AGPL software in the stack. Now being on the other side of the table as an OSS product, this is painful to watch. I don’t have a grand plan to solve these misconceptions yet. Hoping that publicly talking about this and driving awareness about GPL and AGPL might help. Open to ideas!
  - kjksf 6y ago
    For situations like this add "for $10k you get a commercial license". (Pick whatever price you think is right). Put that in your readme for visibility. If they are paying lawyers $500/hr to review licenses for peace of mind, they can afford $10k for commercial license. If they don't want to pay $10k then they are freeloaders and you're not loosing anything. This is something that sqlite does. See https://www.sqlite.org/prosupport.html https://www.sqlite.org/prosupport.html: "The SQLite source code is in the public domain, and is free for use by anyone and for any purpose. No license is required. However, some users desire a license so that they can have warranty of title, or just because their company lawyers say they need one. A perpetual license and warranty of title for the core SQLite source code is available for this purpose."
ignoramous 6y ago
I think MPLv2 with or without xGPL compatibility clause (or EPLv2) are a good midway between xGPL and Apache / MIT. If you're really worried about copycats or leechers, you might want to consider either close sourcing / restrictively licensing [0] the very important bits of the stack that matter to paying customers (like GitLab does with their "buyer-based open core model" [1]). Note though, open source has always been about commoditizing loss leaders [2] or commoditizing a product's complement [3]... never quite has been a good business model in and of its own. [0] https://polyformproject.org/licenses/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/ [1] https://www.heavybit.com/library/video/commercial-open-source-business-strategies/ https://www.heavybit.com/library/video/commercial-open-sourc... [2] http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts-its-midlife-crisis/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts... [3] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

by jabo 6y ago

blendergeek 6y ago

> re: OSS licensing, we use GPL and have been very hesitant about using something like AGPL. I’ve personally seen developers not use projects only because they’re AGPL. Even GPL seems to scare some developers. Do you think it is more likely to scare your potential paying customers, your potential contributors, or potential freeloaders? I expect that is likely to scare people in this order: 1. Freeloaders 2. Contributors 3. Customers If I have a Free Software project, I want to scare freeloaders while still welcoming potential customers and contributors. I know its a balancing act, but I like the AGPL.

jabo 6y ago
Unfortunately it seems to scare people in all those categories. People typically start using it for free and over time, some of them become contributors and/or paying customers. So if a license scares the people who start using it for free, it then inherently hurts contributions and customers long term.
TAForObvReasons 6y ago
The order is closer to 1. Contributors 2. Customers 3. Freeloaders The type of person who is likely to contribute will be the first to look at the license, and AGPL will rightfully worry them. For the open source funnel, the potential customers start off as "freeloaders". They are more likely to look at the license in the first place because they are more likely to be using the software in a commercial setting and have to worry about licensing. The AGPL concerns hit them first. The freeloaders will just switch over to a more liberally licensed project.
- teleclimber 6y ago
  > ...and AGPL will rightfully worry them. Not deeply familiar with AGPL. Why is it bad for contributors?
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    The idea that AGPL will "rightfully worry" potential contributors is FUD spread by Google to decrease uptake of the AGPL. AGPL rightfully worries potential freeloaders such as Amazon and Google that want to profit off of proprietary forks of Free Software packages without contributing back to the community.

numair 6y ago

If I was a savvy corporate customer, I’d be more concerned that you’d get AWS’ed by a too-permissive license, which would either put you out of business or prevent you from growing. From that POV, being stuck with a dead or stale product from a dead or stale company is far worse than being stuck with a dead or stale product from Microsoft. Curious to know how you’re solving this — we should come up with some best practices in this area for everyone to adopt!

jabo 6y ago
“Getting AWS’ed”, that should go in the dictionary! In companies I’ve worked at in the past, during every round of fund raising, as part of the due diligence, lawyers would ask for the licenses of all software packages we use. And when AGPL showed up in the list, they’d specifically ask how it’s integrated with the rest of the system, and evaluate it with more scrutiny. In hindsight, this makes total sense - they were just trying to make sure we were compliant with what AGPL calls for. But the fact that AGPL software called for extra scrutiny from lawyers, became a stumbling block and added just enough friction to adopting additional AGPL software in the stack. Now being on the other side of the table as an OSS product, this is painful to watch. I don’t have a grand plan to solve these misconceptions yet. Hoping that publicly talking about this and driving awareness about GPL and AGPL might help. Open to ideas!
- kjksf 6y ago
  For situations like this add "for $10k you get a commercial license". (Pick whatever price you think is right). Put that in your readme for visibility. If they are paying lawyers $500/hr to review licenses for peace of mind, they can afford $10k for commercial license. If they don't want to pay $10k then they are freeloaders and you're not loosing anything. This is something that sqlite does. See https://www.sqlite.org/prosupport.html https://www.sqlite.org/prosupport.html: "The SQLite source code is in the public domain, and is free for use by anyone and for any purpose. No license is required. However, some users desire a license so that they can have warranty of title, or just because their company lawyers say they need one. A perpetual license and warranty of title for the core SQLite source code is available for this purpose."

ignoramous 6y ago

I think MPLv2 with or without xGPL compatibility clause (or EPLv2) are a good midway between xGPL and Apache / MIT. If you're really worried about copycats or leechers, you might want to consider either close sourcing / restrictively licensing [0] the very important bits of the stack that matter to paying customers (like GitLab does with their "buyer-based open core model" [1]). Note though, open source has always been about commoditizing loss leaders [2] or commoditizing a product's complement [3]... never quite has been a good business model in and of its own. [0] https://polyformproject.org/licenses/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/ [1] https://www.heavybit.com/library/video/commercial-open-source-business-strategies/ https://www.heavybit.com/library/video/commercial-open-sourc... [2] http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts-its-midlife-crisis/ http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/12/14/open-source-confronts... [3] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/