5 ms·

Although I agree with many of the sources of frustration mentioned in the article, there is a way: For most software projects, there should be a way to buy a c

Although I agree with many of the sources of frustration mentioned in the article, there is a way: For most software projects, there should be a way to buy a commercial support license. For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees. Even if not enforced, this way a conscientious dev can justify for paying for the license. In addition, for some of the deeper "plumbing" projects, that cannot be really charged for independently, they can included in the licensing of some of the projects that use them, as a clause for certain types of orgs, etc. Something like - using X also requires a license for log4j of $50/yr - where that could even be a pittance, but included in many projects that benefit. This will make the software much more reliable, while actually giving a basis for open source devs to have the funds to support themselves, feel self worth, and pay for a lawyer to protect their IP for things like TikTok's move. As an open source coder, I theoretically love the above, but don't know what license, how to set it up, or how to handle the contracting and payment. In addition, I don't know how to justify my commitment - what exactly am I promising and how. Nonetheless, if someone like Gitlab were to deal with figuring out the technical steps of the licensing and payments, you bet that I would be happy to move my code off GitHub for it (well, my code is already off GitHub, but whatever), and I bet many others would follow suit.

rndhouse 5y ago
I'm working on precisely this problem. My current idea involves payment plans defined in code. See: github.com/openfare/openfare
- sam_goody 5y ago
  Good luck! At least promise, if but a dull glimmer of hope...
  - rndhouse 5y ago
    Thanks for the luck! The up-and-coming generation of developers have grown up exposed to millionaire content creators. They might start wondering about their cut.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> As an open source coder, I theoretically love the above The above is not open source, it's a pretty common free (gratis) for limited use, paid for other use commercial/proprietary license of the type tons of non-open-source software uses. (E.g., Visual Studio.)
- sam_goody 5y ago
  It is most certainly Open Source, in that the source is open. In the case where a support contract is available, but not required, it is no less free than any other free software, but there is at least a chance that it might be bankrolled, as well as the projection that this is a professional project. Even where the support is required, it is my understanding of RHS that that won't impede on the title free, since the usage is not what you are paying for. But there we are quibbling semantics ;)
  - adament 5y ago
    But the GP wrote: “For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees” emphasis mine. If this requirement comes from a clause in the license then it violates the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd because it imposes a restriction on the use of the software.
    - sam_goody 5y ago
      IANL, and am always willing to learn. What clause does this violate exactly? I would guess that you mean one of the following, but I do not see any violation: > 8. "not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution." > 9. "restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. " > 6. "restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research" In addition, that is the "The Open Source Definition", but the phrase "open source" cannot be copyrighted (there is legal precedent, IIRC with Lindows) . According to the DoD, Open Source Software means "software for which the human-readable source code is available for use, study, re-use, modification, enhancement, and re-distribution by the users of such software" [0] In practice, there are many "Open Source" licenses that allow paid licensing [2]. The most well known competitor, FOSS, only slightly differentiates itself with the phrase "Open Software" and openly allows fees. [0]: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/#q-what-is-open-source-software-oss https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/#q-what-... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...
redthrow 5y ago
Stephan Kinsella (who's a patent lawyer) uses an example of some clueless person writing a book and in one of the pages he says, "If you possess this book for more than a minute you are obligated to pay me $1000 per month", and he puts this book on a park bench waiting for someone to pick it up. He later tries to sue the person who picked up the book for not paying their due. Kinsella uses this example to illustrate how some people have no idea how contracts work.

rndhouse 5y ago

I'm working on precisely this problem. My current idea involves payment plans defined in code. See: github.com/openfare/openfare

sam_goody 5y ago
Good luck! At least promise, if but a dull glimmer of hope...
- rndhouse 5y ago
  Thanks for the luck! The up-and-coming generation of developers have grown up exposed to millionaire content creators. They might start wondering about their cut.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> As an open source coder, I theoretically love the above The above is not open source, it's a pretty common free (gratis) for limited use, paid for other use commercial/proprietary license of the type tons of non-open-source software uses. (E.g., Visual Studio.)

sam_goody 5y ago
It is most certainly Open Source, in that the source is open. In the case where a support contract is available, but not required, it is no less free than any other free software, but there is at least a chance that it might be bankrolled, as well as the projection that this is a professional project. Even where the support is required, it is my understanding of RHS that that won't impede on the title free, since the usage is not what you are paying for. But there we are quibbling semantics ;)
- adament 5y ago
  But the GP wrote: “For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees” emphasis mine. If this requirement comes from a clause in the license then it violates the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd because it imposes a restriction on the use of the software.
  - sam_goody 5y ago
    IANL, and am always willing to learn. What clause does this violate exactly? I would guess that you mean one of the following, but I do not see any violation: > 8. "not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution." > 9. "restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. " > 6. "restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research" In addition, that is the "The Open Source Definition", but the phrase "open source" cannot be copyrighted (there is legal precedent, IIRC with Lindows) . According to the DoD, Open Source Software means "software for which the human-readable source code is available for use, study, re-use, modification, enhancement, and re-distribution by the users of such software" [0] In practice, there are many "Open Source" licenses that allow paid licensing [2]. The most well known competitor, FOSS, only slightly differentiates itself with the phrase "Open Software" and openly allows fees. [0]: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/#q-what-is-open-source-software-oss https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/#q-what-... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...

redthrow 5y ago

Stephan Kinsella (who's a patent lawyer) uses an example of some clueless person writing a book and in one of the pages he says, "If you possess this book for more than a minute you are obligated to pay me $1000 per month", and he puts this book on a park bench waiting for someone to pick it up. He later tries to sue the person who picked up the book for not paying their due. Kinsella uses this example to illustrate how some people have no idea how contracts work.