5 ms·

I think a key takeaway from this story is that the author started getting subscriptions once he caused the software to stop working without a license. > If yo

I think a key takeaway from this story is that the author started getting subscriptions once he caused the software to stop working without a license. > If you did not provide a valid license key 15 minutes after the application started, the app just stopped working. IMO, all of the shenanigans with license changes (MIT/LGPL/etc) are nothing to most users. On HN we are sensitive to these nuances . But in the "real world" of corporate worker bees just trying to get stuff done I doubt it even registers. More likely what happens is someone searches for a solution to a problem, installs it and sees if it works and then moves on with their day. Except they can't move on if the software stops working after 15 minutes. Clearly it is doing what they need, so now they need to unblock themselves. We might assume they'll read the code, find the license check and remove it. And I bet some percentage do exactly that. But some percentage of users would rather swipe a credit card for $X instead.

j45 3y ago
There are a lot of users who will quietly derive value from open source because they see that's how it's offered. By placing things like sustainability at the core of such projects, if the users still value it, there is a potential path ahead.
logtempo 3y ago
would've been fun to see if putting the 15min restriction with a hidden option in the code or similar to remove it would've lead to the same result. I'm sure many people would've paid because the free version was not advertised.
- theturtletalks 3y ago
  Isn't this what WinRAR did back in the days? It would be a 7 day trial and then asked you to pay, but the trial never expired.
  - accrual 3y ago
    I switched to 7-Zip and never looked back, but some cool kids did buy a WinRAR license (e.g. LGR on YouTube).
    - xp84 3y ago
      I used a keygen when I was a cool kid, but as a cool adult I finally bought a license (at roughly age 35)
      - strictnein 3y ago
        Same. Bought a key 5-10 years ago just as a "thank you" for all the pirating of it that I did.
        qup 3y ago
        How many times can you pirate software that you only have to buy once?
        theturtletalks 3y ago
        Maybe he started fresh with Windows Vista/7 and needed to pirate it again. Or he had a laptop and desktop so pirated for both.
bityard 3y ago
I don't have a problem with commercial software, and I don't have a problem with open source software, but I do have a problem with developers releasing their code as open source, building a community while banging on the open source drum and then doing a rug-pull by taking the software commercial once they decided they have captured a big enough audience to extract money from it. All I'm asking is, if you want to eventually make money on your project, at least be up front about it in the beginning so that your users can make an informed decision when they decide whether to bake it into their stack. The rug-pull approach is always a much worse look in the end.
- enormousness 3y ago
  In order to be able to take a project close-source the lead would have to employ methods that are a giveaway; use a revokable license, use a dual license, require contributors to cede copyright, ask contributors to agree to a license change etc. The signs are usually there.
- baranul 3y ago
  I'm in agreement with you. Like one or the other, not the switch over. I rather the approach be that if it is an open source project, that they ask for donations. It is possible to succeed in that way, though it requires learning how to pull it off, where they also get corporate sponsors and donations.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  The version released under open source is forever open source. How is it different than maintainer stopped working on the project abruptly. You think that as equally bad?
- jowea 3y ago
  I don't think it counts as a rug pull if you're free to grab the last open version. Why should they continue updating the software?
- kiba 3y ago
  You mean making the software proprietary. The definition of open source itself is neutral on whether it's a commercial effort or not, or whether it's a community effort or not, or whether it's both community and a commercial effort.

j45 3y ago

There are a lot of users who will quietly derive value from open source because they see that's how it's offered. By placing things like sustainability at the core of such projects, if the users still value it, there is a potential path ahead.

logtempo 3y ago

would've been fun to see if putting the 15min restriction with a hidden option in the code or similar to remove it would've lead to the same result. I'm sure many people would've paid because the free version was not advertised.

theturtletalks 3y ago
Isn't this what WinRAR did back in the days? It would be a 7 day trial and then asked you to pay, but the trial never expired.
- accrual 3y ago
  I switched to 7-Zip and never looked back, but some cool kids did buy a WinRAR license (e.g. LGR on YouTube).
  - xp84 3y ago
    I used a keygen when I was a cool kid, but as a cool adult I finally bought a license (at roughly age 35)
    - strictnein 3y ago
      Same. Bought a key 5-10 years ago just as a "thank you" for all the pirating of it that I did.
      - qup 3y ago
        How many times can you pirate software that you only have to buy once?
        theturtletalks 3y ago
        Maybe he started fresh with Windows Vista/7 and needed to pirate it again. Or he had a laptop and desktop so pirated for both.

bityard 3y ago

I don't have a problem with commercial software, and I don't have a problem with open source software, but I do have a problem with developers releasing their code as open source, building a community while banging on the open source drum and then doing a rug-pull by taking the software commercial once they decided they have captured a big enough audience to extract money from it. All I'm asking is, if you want to eventually make money on your project, at least be up front about it in the beginning so that your users can make an informed decision when they decide whether to bake it into their stack. The rug-pull approach is always a much worse look in the end.

enormousness 3y ago
In order to be able to take a project close-source the lead would have to employ methods that are a giveaway; use a revokable license, use a dual license, require contributors to cede copyright, ask contributors to agree to a license change etc. The signs are usually there.
baranul 3y ago
I'm in agreement with you. Like one or the other, not the switch over. I rather the approach be that if it is an open source project, that they ask for donations. It is possible to succeed in that way, though it requires learning how to pull it off, where they also get corporate sponsors and donations.
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
The version released under open source is forever open source. How is it different than maintainer stopped working on the project abruptly. You think that as equally bad?
jowea 3y ago
I don't think it counts as a rug pull if you're free to grab the last open version. Why should they continue updating the software?
kiba 3y ago
You mean making the software proprietary. The definition of open source itself is neutral on whether it's a commercial effort or not, or whether it's a community effort or not, or whether it's both community and a commercial effort.