6 ms·

Open-source, except for the "new framework used to make Loop's settings window", so don't expect to build from source. https://github.com/MrKai77/Loop/issues/4

Open-source, except for the "new framework used to make Loop's settings window", so don't expect to build from source. https://github.com/MrKai77/Loop/issues/406 https://github.com/MrKai77/Loop/issues/406

MrKai77 2y ago
As stated in the comment on GitHub, Luminare will only be accessible by sponsors. If you have financial restrictions or are not able to sponsor me, I am open to giving the you the source code. However, this is all in order to make Loop more profitable, as I have put all my free time into making it. I hope you understand :)
- jimrandomh 2y ago
  If you need to go proprietary to make enough money that's fine, but this is not open source and in particular it is not compatible with the GPLv3 license stated in the README. You have likely already given some users the right to redistribute Luminaire under GPLv3.
- sshine 2y ago
  I don't think anyone disputes rewarding individuals for software they provide to their patrons. I hope you prosper! But "open source to those who pay" is quite a stretch of the definition. If you check Open Source Initiative's list of approved licenses, you won't find anything that fits this definition: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses The closest I know to what you're describing is Business Source License (BSL): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License > The Business Source License (SPDX id BUSL) is a software license which publishes source code but limits the right to use the software to certain classes of users. The BUSL is not an open-source license, but it is source-available license that also mandates an eventual transition to an open-source license. This characteristic has been described as a compromise between traditional proprietary licenses and open source.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    I think this confuses "software is open source" like it's some intrinsic property of the software, and "if you pay me I will sell you the software under an OSS license which is totally fine. It's a bit of an honor system because is allowed to just publish it for anyone to download for free but it's absolutely something you can do.
  - MrKai77 2y ago
    This did not occur to me, thanks for bringing this to my attention! I will definitely look into this! I guess Luminare may end up being fully open-sourced.
    - sshine 2y ago
      This fits even more with the Wikipedia definition of BSL. Just call it what it is, there are no feel-good points for advertising it as something it isn't. People are ambivalent about BSL licenses because of the way companies use them to step back from their previous commitment to open source. They're still an improvement over closed-source licenses.
    - fnord123 2y ago
      You can sell GPL software. But the purchasers can then turn around and distribute it: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon...
    - spooneybarger 2y ago
      I don't know if it would work for you, but dual licensing GPL software is a common way folks generate money to support their work.
- silvanocerza 2y ago
  That's not Open Source then. And probably goes also against the GPLv3 license that you're using.
  - soraminazuki 2y ago
    I don't think they're bound by the GPL if they're the sole copyright owner. Did they take outside contributions without a copyright assignment?
    - Intermernet 2y ago
      If you release software under a license then that version of the software is bound by the license.
      - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
        Unequivocally false. A sole copyright holder is not bound by license terms in the same way as parties to whom the work is being licensed.
        Intermernet 2y ago
        The copyright holders / holder can change or rescind the license, but not retroactively.
        filleokus 2y ago
        Maybe I'm missing something? But my assumption was that if I "acquired" (downloaded…) software licensed under e.g GPLv3, me as the user at least have the theoretical possibility to pursue the rights granted to me by the copyright holder in the license. Of course the copyright holder can license new distributions under a different license (or different licenses at the same time). But are you saying that a copyright holder post hoc can revoke the license? Wouldn't that be kinda weird? Suppose I buy some proprietary software (without any dependencies) because it's GPLv3, and then when I wanna exercise my rights, the sole copyright holder just goes "nah, when I think about it, this is actually not GPLv3". (If you are correct, I guess that situation then might just be a civil case unrelated to the actual license where I essentially didn't get what I paid for)
- JoosToopit 2y ago
  [flagged]
- teruakohatu 2y ago
  > this is all in order to make Loop more profitable, as I have put all my free time into making it. How do you plan on monetising Loop?
  - MrKai77 2y ago
    I do not plan on ever monetizing the core functionality of Loop, which is why I initially turned to making some of the source paid. Of course, this didn't seem to work, so Loop is now once again, fully open source :p Currently, the only way I am making money is via donations, and it seems to be working much better than how I initially was doing, so I'll see based on how these first few weeks with 1.0 ends up.
    - teruakohatu 2y ago
      I wish you the best. I don't think "not-fully" open source would make a difference in terms of donations. Have you looked at setting up a Patreon?
      - MrKai77 2y ago
        I guess that may be true. I will definitely look into setting one up!
        teruakohatu 2y ago
        A popular model is delayed source code release, so new features are developed on a private branch and binary releases, along with the code, and made available to supporters and then after X weeks merged into the main branch. Not sure how this would work with GPL3.
gregoriol 2y ago
Wow, this is bad

MrKai77 2y ago

As stated in the comment on GitHub, Luminare will only be accessible by sponsors. If you have financial restrictions or are not able to sponsor me, I am open to giving the you the source code. However, this is all in order to make Loop more profitable, as I have put all my free time into making it. I hope you understand :)

jimrandomh 2y ago
If you need to go proprietary to make enough money that's fine, but this is not open source and in particular it is not compatible with the GPLv3 license stated in the README. You have likely already given some users the right to redistribute Luminaire under GPLv3.
sshine 2y ago
I don't think anyone disputes rewarding individuals for software they provide to their patrons. I hope you prosper! But "open source to those who pay" is quite a stretch of the definition. If you check Open Source Initiative's list of approved licenses, you won't find anything that fits this definition: https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses The closest I know to what you're describing is Business Source License (BSL): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License > The Business Source License (SPDX id BUSL) is a software license which publishes source code but limits the right to use the software to certain classes of users. The BUSL is not an open-source license, but it is source-available license that also mandates an eventual transition to an open-source license. This characteristic has been described as a compromise between traditional proprietary licenses and open source.
- Spivak 2y ago
  I think this confuses "software is open source" like it's some intrinsic property of the software, and "if you pay me I will sell you the software under an OSS license which is totally fine. It's a bit of an honor system because is allowed to just publish it for anyone to download for free but it's absolutely something you can do.
- MrKai77 2y ago
  This did not occur to me, thanks for bringing this to my attention! I will definitely look into this! I guess Luminare may end up being fully open-sourced.
  - sshine 2y ago
    This fits even more with the Wikipedia definition of BSL. Just call it what it is, there are no feel-good points for advertising it as something it isn't. People are ambivalent about BSL licenses because of the way companies use them to step back from their previous commitment to open source. They're still an improvement over closed-source licenses.
  - fnord123 2y ago
    You can sell GPL software. But the purchasers can then turn around and distribute it: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon...
  - spooneybarger 2y ago
    I don't know if it would work for you, but dual licensing GPL software is a common way folks generate money to support their work.
silvanocerza 2y ago
That's not Open Source then. And probably goes also against the GPLv3 license that you're using.
- soraminazuki 2y ago
  I don't think they're bound by the GPL if they're the sole copyright owner. Did they take outside contributions without a copyright assignment?
  - Intermernet 2y ago
    If you release software under a license then that version of the software is bound by the license.
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
      Unequivocally false. A sole copyright holder is not bound by license terms in the same way as parties to whom the work is being licensed.
      - Intermernet 2y ago
        The copyright holders / holder can change or rescind the license, but not retroactively.
      - filleokus 2y ago
        Maybe I'm missing something? But my assumption was that if I "acquired" (downloaded…) software licensed under e.g GPLv3, me as the user at least have the theoretical possibility to pursue the rights granted to me by the copyright holder in the license. Of course the copyright holder can license new distributions under a different license (or different licenses at the same time). But are you saying that a copyright holder post hoc can revoke the license? Wouldn't that be kinda weird? Suppose I buy some proprietary software (without any dependencies) because it's GPLv3, and then when I wanna exercise my rights, the sole copyright holder just goes "nah, when I think about it, this is actually not GPLv3". (If you are correct, I guess that situation then might just be a civil case unrelated to the actual license where I essentially didn't get what I paid for)
JoosToopit 2y ago
[flagged]
teruakohatu 2y ago
> this is all in order to make Loop more profitable, as I have put all my free time into making it. How do you plan on monetising Loop?
- MrKai77 2y ago
  I do not plan on ever monetizing the core functionality of Loop, which is why I initially turned to making some of the source paid. Of course, this didn't seem to work, so Loop is now once again, fully open source :p Currently, the only way I am making money is via donations, and it seems to be working much better than how I initially was doing, so I'll see based on how these first few weeks with 1.0 ends up.
  - teruakohatu 2y ago
    I wish you the best. I don't think "not-fully" open source would make a difference in terms of donations. Have you looked at setting up a Patreon?
    - MrKai77 2y ago
      I guess that may be true. I will definitely look into setting one up!
      - teruakohatu 2y ago
        A popular model is delayed source code release, so new features are developed on a private branch and binary releases, along with the code, and made available to supporters and then after X weeks merged into the main branch. Not sure how this would work with GPL3.

gregoriol 2y ago

Wow, this is bad