3 ms·

> Don't use a license that's more permissive than you're willing to tolerate. From tfa: Most Fortune 500s are using Faker in some capacity. The scope of the F

> Don't use a license that's more permissive than you're willing to tolerate. From tfa: Most Fortune 500s are using Faker in some capacity. The scope of the Faker project is not small... Who pays for Faker development? No one... Most of these donations are from fellow developers, and not enterprises or corporations. I don't think there's a single OSS license that'd force corps to pony up. Too restrictive terms and they'll simply go looking elsewhere. Google does OSS right. Open source to commoditize your competitor's advantages, not to strengthen your own.

jabl 5y ago
"Commoditize your complement" is one of the (few?) ways to monetize FOSS. But it also means that FOSS can't be the core offering of your company. I guess the lesson is don't be that guy whose business plan is 1. Write FOSS 2. ... 3. Profit!
webmaven 5y ago
> I don't think there's a single OSS license that'd force corps to pony up. Too restrictive terms and they'll simply go looking elsewhere. There is no such license, and there can't be. Just as a license that prohibits use by the military can't be open source, neither can a license that prohibits use by, or requires payment from, corporations. Dual licensing under GPL (or AGPL) and a commercial license is the closest you'll get, and it relies on the aversion many corporations have to the GPL, rather than adding restrictions per-se.
- ignoramous 5y ago
  Mongo did just that (AGPL or custom license), but they moved to create SSPL; for some reason it didn't work out for them? Redis and Elastic tried something Frankenstein by mixing Apache and custom license code in the same repo, which spooked them and the community for good measure, with Elastic, later, notoriously doubling-down on "open" with SSPL. Of all the source-available licenses, I like BSL by MariaDB, better.

3 ms·

> Don't use a license that's more permissive than you're willing to tolerate. From tfa: Most Fortune 500s are using Faker in some capacity. The scope of the F

by ignoramous 5y ago

jabl 5y ago
"Commoditize your complement" is one of the (few?) ways to monetize FOSS. But it also means that FOSS can't be the core offering of your company. I guess the lesson is don't be that guy whose business plan is 1. Write FOSS 2. ... 3. Profit!
webmaven 5y ago
> I don't think there's a single OSS license that'd force corps to pony up. Too restrictive terms and they'll simply go looking elsewhere. There is no such license, and there can't be. Just as a license that prohibits use by the military can't be open source, neither can a license that prohibits use by, or requires payment from, corporations. Dual licensing under GPL (or AGPL) and a commercial license is the closest you'll get, and it relies on the aversion many corporations have to the GPL, rather than adding restrictions per-se.
- ignoramous 5y ago
  Mongo did just that (AGPL or custom license), but they moved to create SSPL; for some reason it didn't work out for them? Redis and Elastic tried something Frankenstein by mixing Apache and custom license code in the same repo, which spooked them and the community for good measure, with Elastic, later, notoriously doubling-down on "open" with SSPL. Of all the source-available licenses, I like BSL by MariaDB, better.