4 ms·

Just to clarify - you want a license where you distribute the code to your product along with the product, but your customers (who receive the code) can't then

by noahl 15y ago

Just to clarify - you want a license where you distribute the code to your product along with the product, but your customers (who receive the code) can't then redistribute it themselves? Or perhaps they can even redistribute it, just not commercially (or not in binary form)? That does seem like an interesting middle ground. It seems like your goal would be to develop a community of developers around it, but with the exception that you are the only person distributing the software (for a fee) to non-developers.

cookiecaper 15y ago
Yes, I want to see that kind of license. The unlimited redistribution is the thing that really makes it difficult to make money selling the software portion of GPL'd software. For some applications, doing the Red Hat business model of commercial support works fine, but if you have something consumer level, you will not make anywhere near enough money off of that. Licensing something under the GPL makes financial gain from your copyright practically impossible. People make much more money if they retain their legal right via copyright to be the sole source of (commercial) distribution. Hence, very few corporations are interested in using the GPL for software that they intend to package and sell as its own product. The ideal license in my mind would include a clause that source and/or binaries should only be given to licensed users. I understand this greatly restricts freedom of distribution compared to the GPL, especially since a user can't know if a user is licensed or not (a practical application of this may be a copyright notice bundled with every patch, telling unlicensed persons they are not allowed to use it), but we know that GPL is too lax on this front from a commercial perspective, making it inviable to sell GPL software (the software itself, not attached services) as a major product. In some cases, a merely non-commercial license might be acceptable. I am always in favor of the most freedom, but we know that the amount of freedom given by the GPL is too much to retain profitability. I would still encourage GPL use where possible, but a license like the one I've described would make it possible for consumer-friendly developers (Valve's a good candidate imo) to open up their code, allow the community to hack on it and share their hacks amongst themselves, and still protect their revenue stream. This could also be extended to game engines like Source; a non-commercial license would be ideal for that so hobbyists, academics, etc., could still learn from it and use it, and Valve could still make their money licensing it out to other game developers. The point is to get source into the hands of as many persons as possible. I don't think it's good to restrict this because of divergent economic or political realities; if you're using a computer, you should have source to your programs, and be able to modify them as you see fit, and developers should still be able to make money off of their software.
- noahl 15y ago
  Yeah, I would love to see that too. Do you happen to know any software developers looking for a license? :-) I wonder if the FSF would agree to write such a license. It doesn't quite fit with their goals, I think, but they also preach "pragmatic idealism". And they provide the LGPL, so it's not without precedent.
mnutt 15y ago
Another route that some companies go is the dual-license model: you release your product as GPL, and if other companies want to use your code and not GPL it they can pay you for a license. That way you have both an open source community and a revenue stream. The main issue I see is that in order to work it really requires copyright assignment of all code to the company, and in many cases that's a raw deal for your open source contributors.

by noahl 15y ago

cookiecaper 15y ago

Yes, I want to see that kind of license. The unlimited redistribution is the thing that really makes it difficult to make money selling the software portion of GPL'd software. For some applications, doing the Red Hat business model of commercial support works fine, but if you have something consumer level, you will not make anywhere near enough money off of that. Licensing something under the GPL makes financial gain from your copyright practically impossible. People make much more money if they retain their legal right via copyright to be the sole source of (commercial) distribution. Hence, very few corporations are interested in using the GPL for software that they intend to package and sell as its own product. The ideal license in my mind would include a clause that source and/or binaries should only be given to licensed users. I understand this greatly restricts freedom of distribution compared to the GPL, especially since a user can't know if a user is licensed or not (a practical application of this may be a copyright notice bundled with every patch, telling unlicensed persons they are not allowed to use it), but we know that GPL is too lax on this front from a commercial perspective, making it inviable to sell GPL software (the software itself, not attached services) as a major product. In some cases, a merely non-commercial license might be acceptable. I am always in favor of the most freedom, but we know that the amount of freedom given by the GPL is too much to retain profitability. I would still encourage GPL use where possible, but a license like the one I've described would make it possible for consumer-friendly developers (Valve's a good candidate imo) to open up their code, allow the community to hack on it and share their hacks amongst themselves, and still protect their revenue stream. This could also be extended to game engines like Source; a non-commercial license would be ideal for that so hobbyists, academics, etc., could still learn from it and use it, and Valve could still make their money licensing it out to other game developers. The point is to get source into the hands of as many persons as possible. I don't think it's good to restrict this because of divergent economic or political realities; if you're using a computer, you should have source to your programs, and be able to modify them as you see fit, and developers should still be able to make money off of their software.

noahl 15y ago
Yeah, I would love to see that too. Do you happen to know any software developers looking for a license? :-) I wonder if the FSF would agree to write such a license. It doesn't quite fit with their goals, I think, but they also preach "pragmatic idealism". And they provide the LGPL, so it's not without precedent.

mnutt 15y ago

Another route that some companies go is the dual-license model: you release your product as GPL, and if other companies want to use your code and not GPL it they can pay you for a license. That way you have both an open source community and a revenue stream. The main issue I see is that in order to work it really requires copyright assignment of all code to the company, and in many cases that's a raw deal for your open source contributors.