5 ms·

> I re-designed the UI of the app to look more professional and implemented a license key system. From that moment if you wanted to use EmailEngine (the new nam

> I re-designed the UI of the app to look more professional and implemented a license key system. From that moment if you wanted to use EmailEngine (the new name for IMAP API), you needed a license key that was only available for paying subscribers. I also changed the license from LGPL to a commercial license. The source code is still published publicly on GitHub. It is no longer open-source by definition but source-available. This change of license was only possible due to requiring outside committers to sign a CLA from the start. This is the key portion. The open source project was turned into a commercial source available library with a license key. I am glad this has worked well for the developer who now has a decent income for all the hard work put into this library.

quaintdev 3y ago
So what prevents someone from bypassing the license check and run the version of application locally?
- m12k 3y ago
  Probably fear that this is the kind of red flag that would show up in due diligence, and that having piracy as part of the foundation of the tech stack that you build your business on is not a worthwhile risk to take.
- evgpbfhnr 3y ago
  Honesty? (haha) More seriously: - you get support by paying, this is important for many businesses - $1k/year is cheap - risk of getting sued if the word gets out you're using something against its license (and for network-facing code, I'd suspect it's easy enough to miss something) For me the advantage of source-available is you can always shortcut the support if there's a business critical problem and you can't wait for the author to wake up, so I think it's a great model.
  - simmons 3y ago
    I'm curious how much time a solo dev spends on support for a project like this. I can imagine some companies asking for a tremendous amount of support, or even trying to somehow get free consultation on adjacent concerns that aren't totally related to the product. Maybe it's just a matter of setting clear boundaries and limiting time?
    - andris9 3y ago
      I do support once a day for about an hour. I do monitor notifications for support emails during the day to react faster for urgent issues but there rarely is anything urgent. I guess the self-hosting side keeps support demand lower - if you are already capable of installing and running that software you can probably figure most of your issues out yourself.
- andris9 3y ago
  Most EmailEngine's customers are small-ish SaaS providers (different kinds of niche CRMs, etc), and in their position, it is not really an option to spend time / risk breaking copyright protections. Instead, they pay the subscription fee and get into building email integration features for their service. TBH, I wouldn't dare to use such a model in the B2C market, though. Everyone would pirate it.
  - RyanHamilton 3y ago
    For niche applications, it's not that terrible. I've produced an SQL IDE for years with a license key that sold <=100 individual purchases per year. I've only spoken to one person I believed pirated it. I've now went the opposite direction and made it free.
    - MattJ100 3y ago
      What led you to making it free?
    - password4321 3y ago
      Nice! https://www.timestored.com/qstudio/ https://www.timestored.com/qstudio/
- meigwilym 3y ago
  Updates, support and no losing developer time to updates and support. Sub $1k is a bargain for something so integral.
graemep 3y ago
> I am glad this has worked well for the developer who now has a decent income for all the hard work put into this library. it is also why people are reluctant to sign CLAs.
- KingMob 3y ago
  It's a sad irony that CLAs essentially put the project owner in the exact same position as the unicorn that screwed them over, by screwing over those downstream who make contributions, if/when they monetize the project. I came across some Scheme/Racket/? library recently that attempts to quantify contribution levels and distribute any received funds fairly based on that. Unfortunately, I can't find it at the moment, but it was a cool idea.
  - soegaard 3y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xnppM6GG9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xnppM6GG9Q
    - KingMob 3y ago
      YES! That's what I was looking for! Thank you!
  - KingMob 3y ago
    Someone shared what I was looking for! It's called Attribution-Based Economics, it pays out to all contributors based on some measure of relative contribution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xnppM6GG9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xnppM6GG9Q https://drym.org/attribution-based-economics-for-open-source/ https://drym.org/attribution-based-economics-for-open-source...
  - andris9 3y ago
    You mean I screwed over those 0.1% of commits in EmailEngine (because the other 0.1% is from the Github Actions bot writing the changelog)? Everything else is my own code. For over 14 years, I've been actively developing Nodemailer, a hugely popular project. There has been no CLA in place, and the main outside commits I get are typo fixes during Hacktoberfest. This is why I'm still the owner of 98% of the committed code in Nodemailer. Usually, if I do not fix or build something, no one else will either.
sam_goody 3y ago
> I am glad this has worked well for the developer who now has a decent income for all the hard work put into this library. Isn't this a rug-pull? Open source project which others havecontributed to, and whose reputation was earned by nature of being open source. Than, after you have users, switch to proprietary. Sounds bad to me, but maybe I didn't fully understand? BTW, Apple used to have a thing with Darwin server where you could disable the license check legally, but only a hacker would do that. Companies still paid for the software. That sounds like a better solution, IMO - at least for those that are two small to pay but growing by the seat of their pants can still use and promote the software.
- MattJ100 3y ago
  The main reason CLAs exist is to facilitate this kind of "rug pull", so I think the lesson is to either accept that it will happen or never sign a CLA.

quaintdev 3y ago

So what prevents someone from bypassing the license check and run the version of application locally?

m12k 3y ago
Probably fear that this is the kind of red flag that would show up in due diligence, and that having piracy as part of the foundation of the tech stack that you build your business on is not a worthwhile risk to take.
evgpbfhnr 3y ago
Honesty? (haha) More seriously: - you get support by paying, this is important for many businesses - $1k/year is cheap - risk of getting sued if the word gets out you're using something against its license (and for network-facing code, I'd suspect it's easy enough to miss something) For me the advantage of source-available is you can always shortcut the support if there's a business critical problem and you can't wait for the author to wake up, so I think it's a great model.
- simmons 3y ago
  I'm curious how much time a solo dev spends on support for a project like this. I can imagine some companies asking for a tremendous amount of support, or even trying to somehow get free consultation on adjacent concerns that aren't totally related to the product. Maybe it's just a matter of setting clear boundaries and limiting time?
  - andris9 3y ago
    I do support once a day for about an hour. I do monitor notifications for support emails during the day to react faster for urgent issues but there rarely is anything urgent. I guess the self-hosting side keeps support demand lower - if you are already capable of installing and running that software you can probably figure most of your issues out yourself.
andris9 3y ago
Most EmailEngine's customers are small-ish SaaS providers (different kinds of niche CRMs, etc), and in their position, it is not really an option to spend time / risk breaking copyright protections. Instead, they pay the subscription fee and get into building email integration features for their service. TBH, I wouldn't dare to use such a model in the B2C market, though. Everyone would pirate it.
- RyanHamilton 3y ago
  For niche applications, it's not that terrible. I've produced an SQL IDE for years with a license key that sold <=100 individual purchases per year. I've only spoken to one person I believed pirated it. I've now went the opposite direction and made it free.
  - MattJ100 3y ago
    What led you to making it free?
  - password4321 3y ago
    Nice! https://www.timestored.com/qstudio/ https://www.timestored.com/qstudio/
meigwilym 3y ago
Updates, support and no losing developer time to updates and support. Sub $1k is a bargain for something so integral.

graemep 3y ago

> I am glad this has worked well for the developer who now has a decent income for all the hard work put into this library. it is also why people are reluctant to sign CLAs.

KingMob 3y ago
It's a sad irony that CLAs essentially put the project owner in the exact same position as the unicorn that screwed them over, by screwing over those downstream who make contributions, if/when they monetize the project. I came across some Scheme/Racket/? library recently that attempts to quantify contribution levels and distribute any received funds fairly based on that. Unfortunately, I can't find it at the moment, but it was a cool idea.
- soegaard 3y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xnppM6GG9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xnppM6GG9Q
  - KingMob 3y ago
    YES! That's what I was looking for! Thank you!
- KingMob 3y ago
  Someone shared what I was looking for! It's called Attribution-Based Economics, it pays out to all contributors based on some measure of relative contribution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xnppM6GG9Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xnppM6GG9Q https://drym.org/attribution-based-economics-for-open-source/ https://drym.org/attribution-based-economics-for-open-source...
- andris9 3y ago
  You mean I screwed over those 0.1% of commits in EmailEngine (because the other 0.1% is from the Github Actions bot writing the changelog)? Everything else is my own code. For over 14 years, I've been actively developing Nodemailer, a hugely popular project. There has been no CLA in place, and the main outside commits I get are typo fixes during Hacktoberfest. This is why I'm still the owner of 98% of the committed code in Nodemailer. Usually, if I do not fix or build something, no one else will either.

sam_goody 3y ago

> I am glad this has worked well for the developer who now has a decent income for all the hard work put into this library. Isn't this a rug-pull? Open source project which others havecontributed to, and whose reputation was earned by nature of being open source. Than, after you have users, switch to proprietary. Sounds bad to me, but maybe I didn't fully understand? BTW, Apple used to have a thing with Darwin server where you could disable the license check legally, but only a hacker would do that. Companies still paid for the software. That sounds like a better solution, IMO - at least for those that are two small to pay but growing by the seat of their pants can still use and promote the software.

MattJ100 3y ago
The main reason CLAs exist is to facilitate this kind of "rug pull", so I think the lesson is to either accept that it will happen or never sign a CLA.