12 ms·

There is one important monetization strategy that is overlooked by this article: dual licensing. License the source explicitly for non commercial use only, then

There is one important monetization strategy that is overlooked by this article: dual licensing. License the source explicitly for non commercial use only, then offer a commercial use licensed product (plus support, usually) for a fee. If there is a big community of hobbyists in the relevant field who do the same thing in their dayjob, I think this works well. Edit: A more open source version of this is to GPL the source and offer a more commercial friendly licensed product for a fee. I don't know if this technically goes against GPL but I have seen people do this. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing

glitchc 4y ago
Maintaining feature parity in a dual licensing model is the challenge. Incentives are such that over time the paid for version invariably incorporates features that are lacking in the open source version, simply because there’s limited incentive to port them over.
vs4vijay 4y ago
Isn't it the Open Core model?
- rthomas6 4y ago
  It's related, but the Open Core model described in the article mentions extra paid features surrounding an open core anyone can use. What I am describing is the same set of features priced differently for different use cases.
  - thanksgiving 4y ago
    I anal but why do we need to restrict commercial activity? I say allow people commercial use but use AGPLv3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice... > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. > The purpose of the GNU Affero GPL is to prevent a problem that affects developers of free programs that are often used on servers. This allows people to run your code as is but as soon as they edit the source code, they must make it available to their users. My understanding is if they only use it for their employees on their own corporate network, they only need to share the changes with their own employees? I think that is a fair compromise, no?
juergbi 4y ago
While this may be an option in some cases, this wouldn't be an open source project.
- chrsig 4y ago
  do you mean to say it wouldn't be libre software, due to the commercial use restriction?
  - random314 4y ago
    Yes
- jb1991 4y ago
  open source means the source is.. open. It does not mean the source is necessary free. These two points are not in conflict.
  - jahewson 4y ago
    That is not how we define open source. See: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Openness is much more than “source available”. Open for use by others is an important part of that.
    - amrocha 4y ago
      That's not how I've decided to define open source. Looking forward to seeing that page updated!
    - jb1991 4y ago
      "unlicensed open source" exists, however -- it is a real thing, referred to as open source, despite that it cannot be used legally. i.e. https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/software-security/unlicensed-open-source-scenarios/ https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/software-security/unlicensed-...
Gud 4y ago
If it’s licensed for “non-commercial use”, it is no longer open source. But you are correct that the dual source licensing scheme can work, look at NGINX(BSD license) and NGINX Plus.
- rthomas6 4y ago
  If the non-commercial use license includes a copy of the source, why isn't that open source?
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    Open source != source available
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      Disagree. Stop mangling language. Open source literally means the source code is freely available. If that's not good enough you need a new phrase.
      - Gud 4y ago
        No, this is not the definition of open source. Open Source was coined by OSI as an alternative (less political) than Free Software.
        clcaev 4y ago
        Well, it was just as political... it's just the politics favor large companies who were convinced to use and let their employees contribute to projects under a license more akin to the public domain.
      - cercatrova 4y ago
        "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:" (omitted here) [0] Crucially, one cannot make their code "for non-commerical use only" and have it still be open source. It must be available for any entity to do with it what they wish. One can of course restrict that, but it would no longer be open source. Source available, perhaps, but not open source. Therefore, ironically, it is you who should not mangle language, not me. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
cal85 4y ago
Software that is free for “non-commercial” use doesn’t really get anywhere. It’s a naive proposition. It is not simple drawing the line between non-commercial and commercial activities. Things that are non-commercial can easily slip into commercial by some definition, and then you’d suddenly be in breach of contract, no one wants to take that risk. This is why people use permissive licences if they want their OSS to be used.
- rthomas6 4y ago
  >Things that are non-commercial can easily slip into commercial by some definition, and then you’d suddenly be in breach of contract, no one wants to take that risk. That's part of why it works. If you start making money, you have to pay to use the software you've already designed your product around.
  - joemazerino 4y ago
    How do you enforce payment? Chasing vendors around? Adding analytics to your platform to tattle-tale?
  - jahewson 4y ago
    “Making money” is not a workable definition. What if my product is free but my company makes money off support? What if it’s freemium but I have not added a paid tier yet? What if my product looses money? What if my software is free but I use it to promote my personal brand and pick up consulting work? I’d say that all of those scenarios are commercial.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    > If you start making money Is that Net or Gross?
  - cal85 4y ago
    > That's part of why it works. Where does it work? It seems almost non-existent to me. Maybe we are looking at different areas of the market though.
throwaway284534 4y ago
It’s disheartening, especially so in a tech community, to see comments appear so quickly to cast judgement. “Dual licensing is not open source!” This is same kind of pedantry that haunts every thread like the last. We know that a bowl of cereal isn’t thought of as a soup, nor is a hotdog thought a sandwich. And yet, there’s always someone out there with the time to argue semantics. The proof is in the pudding! Software developers who have any business sense will tell you that customers presume that open-source is synonymous with source-available. Marketing your software with that presumption isn’t a moral failing — It’s business! And if anyone out their still has an unfulfilled quandary, I would recommend that they try to monetize their open-source code and experience the illucrative rewards of the MIT and BSD licenses.
- franciscop 4y ago
  Exactly! I'm considering a small project in the future, and I'd make it open source _mainly_ for a security point of view. The kind of software in particular would benefit the users massively if they can read the code, and even self-host for the most paranoid (with a fee and a very restrictive license?). Sure, it'd not be in the "open source" space and I would personally not market it as such, but while it's way better than not having access to the code I know if it ends up in HN comments like the one you mention will be plenty.
- bsedlm 4y ago
  what's worse, open source has nothing to do with freedom
- jahewson 4y ago
  Nope. Sorry but you don’t get to hijack the term “open source”. There’s a reason we have gone to considerable lengths to define it https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Openness is an important principle and it includes not discriminating against fields of endeavour. Think “open society” not “open jar”. And if you disagree? Well, then I have some free software to sell you! > Software developers who have any business sense will tell you that customers presume that open-source is synonymous with source-available. As a software developer with business sense, I call BS on this made-up “fact”. All true scotsmen agree with me.
pksebben 4y ago
They do mention this as their own strategy - a cloud-hosted subscription version of plausible is available where they manage and run it for you.
- rthomas6 4y ago
  Technically, that is not the same thing. That's monetization through SaaS, which is one of the strategies mentioned (Hosted, plug and play solution as a SaaS).
svnpenn 4y ago
> License the source explicitly for non commercial use only Sadly, GitHub support for this doesn't really exist: https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/1015 https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/1015
- yencabulator 4y ago
  What Github's quick preview feature recognizes has very little to do with what licenses are in use and practical. Example: https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.m...
  - svnpenn 4y ago
    thanks, I found this one too: https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/2nd-ed/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/2nd-ed/LICEN...
bachmeier 4y ago
This is Richard Stallman's position: "I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

glitchc 4y ago

Maintaining feature parity in a dual licensing model is the challenge. Incentives are such that over time the paid for version invariably incorporates features that are lacking in the open source version, simply because there’s limited incentive to port them over.

vs4vijay 4y ago

Isn't it the Open Core model?

rthomas6 4y ago
It's related, but the Open Core model described in the article mentions extra paid features surrounding an open core anyone can use. What I am describing is the same set of features priced differently for different use cases.
- thanksgiving 4y ago
  I anal but why do we need to restrict commercial activity? I say allow people commercial use but use AGPLv3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice... > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. > The purpose of the GNU Affero GPL is to prevent a problem that affects developers of free programs that are often used on servers. This allows people to run your code as is but as soon as they edit the source code, they must make it available to their users. My understanding is if they only use it for their employees on their own corporate network, they only need to share the changes with their own employees? I think that is a fair compromise, no?

juergbi 4y ago

While this may be an option in some cases, this wouldn't be an open source project.

chrsig 4y ago
do you mean to say it wouldn't be libre software, due to the commercial use restriction?
- random314 4y ago
  Yes
jb1991 4y ago
open source means the source is.. open. It does not mean the source is necessary free. These two points are not in conflict.
- jahewson 4y ago
  That is not how we define open source. See: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Openness is much more than “source available”. Open for use by others is an important part of that.
  - amrocha 4y ago
    That's not how I've decided to define open source. Looking forward to seeing that page updated!
  - jb1991 4y ago
    "unlicensed open source" exists, however -- it is a real thing, referred to as open source, despite that it cannot be used legally. i.e. https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/software-security/unlicensed-open-source-scenarios/ https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/software-security/unlicensed-...

Gud 4y ago

If it’s licensed for “non-commercial use”, it is no longer open source. But you are correct that the dual source licensing scheme can work, look at NGINX(BSD license) and NGINX Plus.

rthomas6 4y ago
If the non-commercial use license includes a copy of the source, why isn't that open source?
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Open source != source available
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Disagree. Stop mangling language. Open source literally means the source code is freely available. If that's not good enough you need a new phrase.
    - Gud 4y ago
      No, this is not the definition of open source. Open Source was coined by OSI as an alternative (less political) than Free Software.
      - clcaev 4y ago
        Well, it was just as political... it's just the politics favor large companies who were convinced to use and let their employees contribute to projects under a license more akin to the public domain.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:" (omitted here) [0] Crucially, one cannot make their code "for non-commerical use only" and have it still be open source. It must be available for any entity to do with it what they wish. One can of course restrict that, but it would no longer be open source. Source available, perhaps, but not open source. Therefore, ironically, it is you who should not mangle language, not me. [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

cal85 4y ago

Software that is free for “non-commercial” use doesn’t really get anywhere. It’s a naive proposition. It is not simple drawing the line between non-commercial and commercial activities. Things that are non-commercial can easily slip into commercial by some definition, and then you’d suddenly be in breach of contract, no one wants to take that risk. This is why people use permissive licences if they want their OSS to be used.

rthomas6 4y ago
>Things that are non-commercial can easily slip into commercial by some definition, and then you’d suddenly be in breach of contract, no one wants to take that risk. That's part of why it works. If you start making money, you have to pay to use the software you've already designed your product around.
- joemazerino 4y ago
  How do you enforce payment? Chasing vendors around? Adding analytics to your platform to tattle-tale?
- jahewson 4y ago
  “Making money” is not a workable definition. What if my product is free but my company makes money off support? What if it’s freemium but I have not added a paid tier yet? What if my product looses money? What if my software is free but I use it to promote my personal brand and pick up consulting work? I’d say that all of those scenarios are commercial.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  > If you start making money Is that Net or Gross?
- cal85 4y ago
  > That's part of why it works. Where does it work? It seems almost non-existent to me. Maybe we are looking at different areas of the market though.

throwaway284534 4y ago

It’s disheartening, especially so in a tech community, to see comments appear so quickly to cast judgement. “Dual licensing is not open source!” This is same kind of pedantry that haunts every thread like the last. We know that a bowl of cereal isn’t thought of as a soup, nor is a hotdog thought a sandwich. And yet, there’s always someone out there with the time to argue semantics. The proof is in the pudding! Software developers who have any business sense will tell you that customers presume that open-source is synonymous with source-available. Marketing your software with that presumption isn’t a moral failing — It’s business! And if anyone out their still has an unfulfilled quandary, I would recommend that they try to monetize their open-source code and experience the illucrative rewards of the MIT and BSD licenses.

franciscop 4y ago
Exactly! I'm considering a small project in the future, and I'd make it open source _mainly_ for a security point of view. The kind of software in particular would benefit the users massively if they can read the code, and even self-host for the most paranoid (with a fee and a very restrictive license?). Sure, it'd not be in the "open source" space and I would personally not market it as such, but while it's way better than not having access to the code I know if it ends up in HN comments like the one you mention will be plenty.
bsedlm 4y ago
what's worse, open source has nothing to do with freedom
jahewson 4y ago
Nope. Sorry but you don’t get to hijack the term “open source”. There’s a reason we have gone to considerable lengths to define it https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Openness is an important principle and it includes not discriminating against fields of endeavour. Think “open society” not “open jar”. And if you disagree? Well, then I have some free software to sell you! > Software developers who have any business sense will tell you that customers presume that open-source is synonymous with source-available. As a software developer with business sense, I call BS on this made-up “fact”. All true scotsmen agree with me.

pksebben 4y ago

They do mention this as their own strategy - a cloud-hosted subscription version of plausible is available where they manage and run it for you.

rthomas6 4y ago
Technically, that is not the same thing. That's monetization through SaaS, which is one of the strategies mentioned (Hosted, plug and play solution as a SaaS).

svnpenn 4y ago

> License the source explicitly for non commercial use only Sadly, GitHub support for this doesn't really exist: https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/1015 https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/1015

yencabulator 4y ago
What Github's quick preview feature recognizes has very little to do with what licenses are in use and practical. Example: https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.m...
- svnpenn 4y ago
  thanks, I found this one too: https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/2nd-ed/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS/blob/2nd-ed/LICEN...

bachmeier 4y ago

This is Richard Stallman's position: "I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]