4 ms·

> 2. Copy-paste a new license to your repositories - You relicense your software to use a slightly modified version of MIT license, which requires commercial en

> 2. Copy-paste a new license to your repositories - You relicense your software to use a slightly modified version of MIT license, which requires commercial entities to pay for your software (5 minutes or so) Then the software is not open source anymore, i.e. the claim that one sells open source software is fraudulent. Side remark: In the past Microsoft attempted to establish the term "shared source" for software where you can see the source code, but which is not open source.

yu3zhou4 3y ago
Thanks for the remark. On the marketplace I call it "paid open source software", so I guess I could be more specific in original comment, sorry for unclearness from my side
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  > On the marketplace I call it "paid open source software" This is still wrong (and likely again fraudulent, but IANAL), since the software is not open source if there are such usage restrictions. Call it, for example, "paid sofware with source available" ("source available" is another common term for software for which one can see the source code, but which is not open source).
- pessimizer 3y ago
  1) Simply don't call it "open source software." Making up new definitions for open source is more harmful to it than anything else could be. There's nothing to open source except licensing. 2) The usual way to do this is to AGPL your software (or be even stricter), and sell it by relicensing it for businesses who pay you so they can use it how they wish. You don't have to make up a new "non-commercial open source" license to do this. edit: It feels like OSS people are haphazardly stumbling through the thought processes that lead to the GPL in the first place. Once you've made an open source license that doesn't allow people to make money using the software, does it matter whether they share their changes or not when they distribute? What's motivating people to reserve the right not to share changes in the software they distribute for free, other than to maintain a now enforced as worthless (by this particular license and similar variants) distinction from the GPL?
- doesnt_know 3y ago
  The established term is "source available" specifically because it's not open source.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> the claim that one sells open source software is fraudulent Fraud requires intent to deceive. Your conclusion seems very alarmist and unfair.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  The rules about open source aren't mysterious or hidden, and anyone who has spent time rewriting the MIT license and creating a marketplace for open source software is either familiar with them or incompetent.

yu3zhou4 3y ago

Thanks for the remark. On the marketplace I call it "paid open source software", so I guess I could be more specific in original comment, sorry for unclearness from my side

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> On the marketplace I call it "paid open source software" This is still wrong (and likely again fraudulent, but IANAL), since the software is not open source if there are such usage restrictions. Call it, for example, "paid sofware with source available" ("source available" is another common term for software for which one can see the source code, but which is not open source).
pessimizer 3y ago
1) Simply don't call it "open source software." Making up new definitions for open source is more harmful to it than anything else could be. There's nothing to open source except licensing. 2) The usual way to do this is to AGPL your software (or be even stricter), and sell it by relicensing it for businesses who pay you so they can use it how they wish. You don't have to make up a new "non-commercial open source" license to do this. edit: It feels like OSS people are haphazardly stumbling through the thought processes that lead to the GPL in the first place. Once you've made an open source license that doesn't allow people to make money using the software, does it matter whether they share their changes or not when they distribute? What's motivating people to reserve the right not to share changes in the software they distribute for free, other than to maintain a now enforced as worthless (by this particular license and similar variants) distinction from the GPL?
doesnt_know 3y ago
The established term is "source available" specifically because it's not open source.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> the claim that one sells open source software is fraudulent Fraud requires intent to deceive. Your conclusion seems very alarmist and unfair.

pessimizer 3y ago
The rules about open source aren't mysterious or hidden, and anyone who has spent time rewriting the MIT license and creating a marketplace for open source software is either familiar with them or incompetent.