4 ms·

I'd like to see source trusts like the code is given to an authority that will make it Apache/MIT/BSD if conditions are met. Let the creators draw the line in t

I'd like to see source trusts like the code is given to an authority that will make it Apache/MIT/BSD if conditions are met. Let the creators draw the line in the sand. Company goes bankrupt. No new release for 3 years. Or maybe always release the code from 5 years commit by commit. Just to prevent abandonware and lost sources. Should be sufficient to preserve commercial viability.

hedora 5y ago
The Business Source License more or less achieves this.
- q-big 5y ago
  > The Business Source License more or less achieves this. The Business Source License is not an open source license. Sources: > https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ > https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html "The Business Source License (this document, or the “License”) is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License."
  - coder543 5y ago
    You seem to be missing the whole point of this thread. They wanted something like a "source trust". The BSL provides something like that, as long as you aren't worried about people breaking the license without concern for legal consequence. The code eventually becomes open source after certain criteria are met. No one in this thread claimed that BSL-licensed code is immediately open source.
pid-1 5y ago
GitLab does something like that if I'm not mistaken. Features start in the most expensive tier, then tricke down and end up in OSS.
- notyourday 5y ago
  Gitlab was a VC backed firm.
chakkepolja 5y ago
Isn't that the deal with QT?
laurent92 5y ago
Code disclosure if company goes bankrupt triggers a counter-incentive: Your customers has a stake in you going bankrupt.
- mattigames 5y ago
  In that line of logic your competition has a new incentive for you to NOT go bankrupt (perhaps buy your company before that happens?)
- dTal 5y ago
  Why would your customers want you to stop maintaining the software they use and have already paid for?
- hermitdev 5y ago
  If you're of sufficient size that you are a risk to a company's bottom line, I've got news for you: they probably already have a stake in you going bankrupt. Companies buy insurance against their business partners going bankrupt all the time. One such means is called a credit default swap (CDS).
- jka 5y ago
  ...if your customers believe that maintaining your code can be done more cost-effectively than the rates you're currently charging them. (and note that cost-effectiveness != cost -- they're correlated, but not the same)
amelius 5y ago
And how would you handle the security aspects of not having the source code? For instance, not all companies are happy with third parties that have access to their data, either directly or indirectly.
mooreds 5y ago
Are you looking for something like the business source license? https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/ https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/

hedora 5y ago

The Business Source License more or less achieves this.

q-big 5y ago
> The Business Source License more or less achieves this. The Business Source License is not an open source license. Sources: > https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ > https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html "The Business Source License (this document, or the “License”) is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License."
- coder543 5y ago
  You seem to be missing the whole point of this thread. They wanted something like a "source trust". The BSL provides something like that, as long as you aren't worried about people breaking the license without concern for legal consequence. The code eventually becomes open source after certain criteria are met. No one in this thread claimed that BSL-licensed code is immediately open source.

pid-1 5y ago

GitLab does something like that if I'm not mistaken. Features start in the most expensive tier, then tricke down and end up in OSS.

notyourday 5y ago
Gitlab was a VC backed firm.

chakkepolja 5y ago

Isn't that the deal with QT?

laurent92 5y ago

Code disclosure if company goes bankrupt triggers a counter-incentive: Your customers has a stake in you going bankrupt.

mattigames 5y ago
In that line of logic your competition has a new incentive for you to NOT go bankrupt (perhaps buy your company before that happens?)
dTal 5y ago
Why would your customers want you to stop maintaining the software they use and have already paid for?
hermitdev 5y ago
If you're of sufficient size that you are a risk to a company's bottom line, I've got news for you: they probably already have a stake in you going bankrupt. Companies buy insurance against their business partners going bankrupt all the time. One such means is called a credit default swap (CDS).
jka 5y ago
...if your customers believe that maintaining your code can be done more cost-effectively than the rates you're currently charging them. (and note that cost-effectiveness != cost -- they're correlated, but not the same)

amelius 5y ago

And how would you handle the security aspects of not having the source code? For instance, not all companies are happy with third parties that have access to their data, either directly or indirectly.

mooreds 5y ago

Are you looking for something like the business source license? https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/ https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/