5 ms·

I combine licenses in a weird manner to try and get some honest result: - On the low level more generic tooling I use ALGPL, so a mix of AGLP and LGPL, you can

by bullen 5y ago

I combine licenses in a weird manner to try and get some honest result: - On the low level more generic tooling I use ALGPL, so a mix of AGLP and LGPL, you can think of it as LGPL but you cannot modify it without sharing the source if you make money off of hosting a service which uses the software (Amazon f.ex. would need to share source if they used it in a paying server product). - On the higher level multiplayer layer I mix MIT and a flat out commercial license: So if you are using the system for fun you have MIT but if you want to charge for the product you need to pay monthly in proportion to your company stuctures yearly revenue. I don't know if this is going to work eventually if anyone begins to care about the stack because of the MMO I'm trying to build to gather interest, but we'll see! As for gathering the payments, I think github has a big role to play by adding optional global VAT (and paying it automatically) to the sponsorship tiers (just add a commercial license checkbox) so that programmers can focus on programming without too much bureaucratic distraction. Itch.io has that but they lack recurring payments, so this is a callout for a feature that today needs alot of cumbersome work: recurring payments with automatic VAT! (I have allready talked to both github and itch)

r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
I think Gumroad do this (automatic VAT with recurring payments). Not sure if it's an appropriate market for your product though.
- bullen 5y ago
  Ok, I have moved my licensing there, thx!
jgilias 5y ago
Can you elaborate on the MIT usage? How can you ensure (say, legally) that people using the system for fun can use the MIT version, while people charging for the product must use the commercial one? I mean, the MIT license explicitly allows for people to take your code and use it for whatever purpose. Including repackaging it and charging money for it, without even needing to release the source code of any changes or the resulting work.
- bullen 5y ago
  Well, you use text that says "MIT _BUT_ also commercial license". That's how the law has always worked. You use words to descibe things. Good luck enforcing that MIT in court against my text.
  - klez 5y ago
    > Permission is hereby granted, *free of charge*, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software *without restriction*, including *without limitation* the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software Emphasis mine. I'm not a lawyer, but are you sure your words can contradict another right you specifically gave with that license?
    - bullen 5y ago
      That's why you use dual licensing; if you clearly state that you want the software to use MIT without money involved but something else if money is involved that is generally not a problem, never has been, and never will be: because it makes sense, it's fair and honest!
      - erwincoumans 5y ago
        You want a MIT license (that is by definition without restrictions), but you want to add the "without money restriction". It doesn't work like that. Once you add a restriction of "without money involved" to the MIT license, it is not the MIT license anymore.
        bullen 5y ago
        Don't worry I just invented the hybrid license which is a superset and can have that fork of two licenses depending on money. Enjoy!
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
gspr 5y ago
> - On the low level more generic tooling I use ALGPL, so a mix of AGLP and LGPL, you can think of it as LGPL but you cannot modify it without sharing the source if you make money off of hosting a service which uses the software (Amazon f.ex. would need to share source if they used it in a paying server product). Since there is no actual ALGPL (see e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3330792/why-isnt-there-a-lesser-affero-general-public-license https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3330792/why-isnt-there-a...), aren't you afraid that this "crayon license" of yours will scare people off?
- klez 5y ago
  That link is a deleted question and is not visible to users with less than 10,000 reputation (or logged out users). Here's an archived version: http://web.archive.org/web/20150914175753/http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3330792/why-isnt-there-a-lesser-affero-general-public-license http://web.archive.org/web/20150914175753/http://stackoverfl...
  - gspr 5y ago
    Ah, my bad. Thanks!
- bullen 5y ago
  If you read what I wrote the purpose of the A in my LGPL is so big coorps can't use the source for profit without sharing something back if they improve it; avoiding the whole elastic search debacle, like the comment above about MIT use your common sense and morale to judge if this is unplesant or honest!?
  - rcxdude 5y ago
    It's not really a question of unplesantness or honesty, more that it's self-defeating: your intent to get the best of both worlds with participation in open source and getting some reward if your work is used commercially is reasonable, it's just that when you write your own license, especially by trying to combine two existing licenses, you're most likely going to wind up with neither (as in neither open source projects or contributers will be interested nor will commercial companies, and anyone who does will be more likely exposing themselves to legal risks).

by bullen 5y ago

r_hoods_ghost 5y ago

I think Gumroad do this (automatic VAT with recurring payments). Not sure if it's an appropriate market for your product though.

bullen 5y ago
Ok, I have moved my licensing there, thx!

jgilias 5y ago

Can you elaborate on the MIT usage? How can you ensure (say, legally) that people using the system for fun can use the MIT version, while people charging for the product must use the commercial one? I mean, the MIT license explicitly allows for people to take your code and use it for whatever purpose. Including repackaging it and charging money for it, without even needing to release the source code of any changes or the resulting work.

bullen 5y ago
Well, you use text that says "MIT _BUT_ also commercial license". That's how the law has always worked. You use words to descibe things. Good luck enforcing that MIT in court against my text.
- klez 5y ago
  > Permission is hereby granted, *free of charge*, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software *without restriction*, including *without limitation* the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software Emphasis mine. I'm not a lawyer, but are you sure your words can contradict another right you specifically gave with that license?
  - bullen 5y ago
    That's why you use dual licensing; if you clearly state that you want the software to use MIT without money involved but something else if money is involved that is generally not a problem, never has been, and never will be: because it makes sense, it's fair and honest!
    - erwincoumans 5y ago
      You want a MIT license (that is by definition without restrictions), but you want to add the "without money restriction". It doesn't work like that. Once you add a restriction of "without money involved" to the MIT license, it is not the MIT license anymore.
      - bullen 5y ago
        Don't worry I just invented the hybrid license which is a superset and can have that fork of two licenses depending on money. Enjoy!
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

gspr 5y ago

> - On the low level more generic tooling I use ALGPL, so a mix of AGLP and LGPL, you can think of it as LGPL but you cannot modify it without sharing the source if you make money off of hosting a service which uses the software (Amazon f.ex. would need to share source if they used it in a paying server product). Since there is no actual ALGPL (see e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3330792/why-isnt-there-a-lesser-affero-general-public-license https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3330792/why-isnt-there-a...), aren't you afraid that this "crayon license" of yours will scare people off?

klez 5y ago
That link is a deleted question and is not visible to users with less than 10,000 reputation (or logged out users). Here's an archived version: http://web.archive.org/web/20150914175753/http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3330792/why-isnt-there-a-lesser-affero-general-public-license http://web.archive.org/web/20150914175753/http://stackoverfl...
- gspr 5y ago
  Ah, my bad. Thanks!
bullen 5y ago
If you read what I wrote the purpose of the A in my LGPL is so big coorps can't use the source for profit without sharing something back if they improve it; avoiding the whole elastic search debacle, like the comment above about MIT use your common sense and morale to judge if this is unplesant or honest!?
- rcxdude 5y ago
  It's not really a question of unplesantness or honesty, more that it's self-defeating: your intent to get the best of both worlds with participation in open source and getting some reward if your work is used commercially is reasonable, it's just that when you write your own license, especially by trying to combine two existing licenses, you're most likely going to wind up with neither (as in neither open source projects or contributers will be interested nor will commercial companies, and anyone who does will be more likely exposing themselves to legal risks).