7 ms·

If you are planning to monitise it through SaaS, might be worthwhile to change the license to AGPL from MIT.

harshithmul 2y ago
Thank you for your suggestion. You’re absolutely right; we are actively exploring licensing options, including AGPL, to ensure that our product remains protected. We value input from the community and are open to suggestions and assistance in making this decision. Our goal is to prevent unauthorized copying and resale of our product under different names while fostering a collaborative and innovative environment.
- zamalek 2y ago
  While the community may be a good source for ideas, you should retain an attorney. The community is not your lawyer. There's also the BSL. It specifically calls out competitive products. It automatically falls away for code older than a given time to another OSI license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License. Per the Wikipedia article this still has issues: contributors are handing over their work for to you for free for that duration, they can't use their own work for profit. The AGPL does make your project extremely unattractive to competition, without affecting your contributors. The issue is that it is still possible to compete with you using it, so long as your competition releases all their code (i.e. infra, billing, etc.) under AGPL. I would personally go for AGPL because it will keep the worst offenders (Amazon, Microsoft) away from your code.
  - harshithmul 2y ago
    Understood, Thank you. Really appreciate all that information.
  - KolmogorovComp 2y ago
    Using BSL would make their code source-available but it wouldn’t be open-source anymore, unlike AGPL.
    - evantbyrne 2y ago
      The Business Source License allows for redistribution and modification of code. Calling it not open-source because it restricts third-parties from slapping a logo on it and selling licenses seems like a stretch. imo licenses like the BSL are really the direction that open-source should be heading in, because they allow the original author to retain their rights while avoiding exploitation by rando corporations.
      - KolmogorovComp 2y ago
        No, it’s not an open-source license because it’s not OSI compliant https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses. Open-source has a specific meaning that too many people don’t know or forgot.
        evantbyrne 2y ago
        This feels like splitting hairs and unnecessary gatekeeping, and I'm not sure for what purpose or for who's intended benefit. The movement needs to evolve to better protect the rights of the people actually doing the work, because they are the ones who are benefiting the least by the narrow definition being pushed by the OSI. Maybe we need a new term if this is how "open-source" is seen in the broader community.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        The term is "source available," but I guess with that, companies can't use "open source" as a marketing term then pull the rug after they got enough contributions, like so many that converted to BSL and others now. By creating rights for those companies such that they cannot be competed with, you actually remove the rights of users, which is the whole reason the open source and free software movements got started in the first place. They are and always have been about the rights of users, not of corporations.
        evantbyrne 2y ago
- kshri24 2y ago
  Do read these two great books by Heather Meeker: 1. Open (Source) for Business: A Practical Guide to Open Source Software Licensing 2. From Project to Profit: How to Build a Business Around Your Open Source Project This video presentation by her on this topic is really valuable too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck1gJIZ3Lr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck1gJIZ3Lr4 You will then have a really good idea of where to start. As the parent poster said, it is wise to switch to AGPL if you want to build a COSS business.
- malcolmgreaves 2y ago
  You can also expressly state that you have a commercial license too. Your entire license can be something like “ If you’re using it for commercial purposes, you must see a commercial license with XYZ. Otherwise, for all noncommercial uses, you may use the software according to the terms of the AGPL license.”
  - Daviey 2y ago
    Please define "commercial use", because it means different things to different people. Also, lots of organisations have a blanket ban on AGPL, so offering it under an alternative commercial license is a great approach to enable them, but explicitly blocking it for "commercial use" makes it no longer free software, which would be a shame.
    - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
      Commercial use is making money with the software. You could certainly iterate on the terms to strike the balance you want. You could make the source available to commercial clients as well. Each client can have a licensed tailored to their exact needs at a price that works for the people that make this software.
      - Daviey 2y ago
        It's much more nuanced than that... Sure, we can agree that if I host and charge users to use the service it is commercial usage... but: - If my limited company use it to manage internal development, but we aren't yet profitable (making money), is it commercial use? - If a company uses it to manage internal development, but it isn't the product itself, is it commercial use? - If I as an individual use it to manage a non-commercial side development project, and when it is then finished, I decide it is worth value and I sell it, does it become commercial usage, and my previous usage turns out to be non-compliant? - Is a charity using it to manage an internal development project "making money"? - If I as an individual provide a professional service to deploy this to "non-commercial" users, is this compliant by the license? You really can drive a truck through the definition of "commercial use", it is nearly as bad as the original JSON license, which stated "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." - which is helluva subjective.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  Note that anything other than MIT will immediately remove one of your major advantages over the competition. No enterprise wants viral licenses in their environment, it’s simply not worth the anxiety when there’s so many options. If you want to compete on being open source your license has to be free.
satvikpendem 2y ago
AGPL doesn't prevent anyone from taking your code wholesale and hosting the entire thing. They didn't make any changes so they don't have to contribute anything back per AGPL. OP can make any part that interacts with it, such as billing and infrastructure code, closed source as they are the copyright holder and thus do not have to abide by AGPL or any license themselves. If they make every contributor sign a CLA, then even better.
- malcolmgreaves 2y ago
  If you build something interacts over a network with an AGPL’d program, then you are hitting the distributing over a network clause in the license.
  - inhumantsar 2y ago
    But that only stipulates that the third party has to make the code available if they've modified it. This is fine if you expect people to want to modify the backend, but it won't stop people who only care about cloning the service. Which is sort of the point, good software made available to as many people as possible as cheaply as possible, but it's not really protection against others who would monetize the software you wrote.
    - xyzzy_plugh 2y ago
      I am not an IP attorney but this is undecided territory: as I understand it your integrations may be considered modifications, and thus may be subject to the terms of the license, depending on the interpretation.
      - satvikpendem 2y ago
        If Amazon can successfully do it such that other companies whose products they were hosting had to relicense to source available from AGPL, then, based on the strength of their lawyers, it is likely that those integrations are not actually needed to be released. And even if they were, it doesn't really matter, people don't use AWS for their source code.

Thank you for your suggestion. You’re absolutely right; we are actively exploring licensing options, including AGPL, to ensure that our product remains protected. We value input from the community and are open to suggestions and assistance in making this decision. Our goal is to prevent unauthorized copying and resale of our product under different names while fostering a collaborative and innovative environment.

zamalek 2y ago
While the community may be a good source for ideas, you should retain an attorney. The community is not your lawyer. There's also the BSL. It specifically calls out competitive products. It automatically falls away for code older than a given time to another OSI license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License. Per the Wikipedia article this still has issues: contributors are handing over their work for to you for free for that duration, they can't use their own work for profit. The AGPL does make your project extremely unattractive to competition, without affecting your contributors. The issue is that it is still possible to compete with you using it, so long as your competition releases all their code (i.e. infra, billing, etc.) under AGPL. I would personally go for AGPL because it will keep the worst offenders (Amazon, Microsoft) away from your code.
- harshithmul 2y ago
  Understood, Thank you. Really appreciate all that information.
- KolmogorovComp 2y ago
  Using BSL would make their code source-available but it wouldn’t be open-source anymore, unlike AGPL.
  - evantbyrne 2y ago
    The Business Source License allows for redistribution and modification of code. Calling it not open-source because it restricts third-parties from slapping a logo on it and selling licenses seems like a stretch. imo licenses like the BSL are really the direction that open-source should be heading in, because they allow the original author to retain their rights while avoiding exploitation by rando corporations.
    - KolmogorovComp 2y ago
      No, it’s not an open-source license because it’s not OSI compliant https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses. Open-source has a specific meaning that too many people don’t know or forgot.
      - evantbyrne 2y ago
        This feels like splitting hairs and unnecessary gatekeeping, and I'm not sure for what purpose or for who's intended benefit. The movement needs to evolve to better protect the rights of the people actually doing the work, because they are the ones who are benefiting the least by the narrow definition being pushed by the OSI. Maybe we need a new term if this is how "open-source" is seen in the broader community.
        satvikpendem 2y ago
        The term is "source available," but I guess with that, companies can't use "open source" as a marketing term then pull the rug after they got enough contributions, like so many that converted to BSL and others now. By creating rights for those companies such that they cannot be competed with, you actually remove the rights of users, which is the whole reason the open source and free software movements got started in the first place. They are and always have been about the rights of users, not of corporations.
        evantbyrne 2y ago
kshri24 2y ago
Do read these two great books by Heather Meeker: 1. Open (Source) for Business: A Practical Guide to Open Source Software Licensing 2. From Project to Profit: How to Build a Business Around Your Open Source Project This video presentation by her on this topic is really valuable too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck1gJIZ3Lr4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck1gJIZ3Lr4 You will then have a really good idea of where to start. As the parent poster said, it is wise to switch to AGPL if you want to build a COSS business.
malcolmgreaves 2y ago
You can also expressly state that you have a commercial license too. Your entire license can be something like “ If you’re using it for commercial purposes, you must see a commercial license with XYZ. Otherwise, for all noncommercial uses, you may use the software according to the terms of the AGPL license.”
- Daviey 2y ago
  Please define "commercial use", because it means different things to different people. Also, lots of organisations have a blanket ban on AGPL, so offering it under an alternative commercial license is a great approach to enable them, but explicitly blocking it for "commercial use" makes it no longer free software, which would be a shame.
  - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
    Commercial use is making money with the software. You could certainly iterate on the terms to strike the balance you want. You could make the source available to commercial clients as well. Each client can have a licensed tailored to their exact needs at a price that works for the people that make this software.
    - Daviey 2y ago
      It's much more nuanced than that... Sure, we can agree that if I host and charge users to use the service it is commercial usage... but: - If my limited company use it to manage internal development, but we aren't yet profitable (making money), is it commercial use? - If a company uses it to manage internal development, but it isn't the product itself, is it commercial use? - If I as an individual use it to manage a non-commercial side development project, and when it is then finished, I decide it is worth value and I sell it, does it become commercial usage, and my previous usage turns out to be non-compliant? - Is a charity using it to manage an internal development project "making money"? - If I as an individual provide a professional service to deploy this to "non-commercial" users, is this compliant by the license? You really can drive a truck through the definition of "commercial use", it is nearly as bad as the original JSON license, which stated "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." - which is helluva subjective.
Aeolun 2y ago
Note that anything other than MIT will immediately remove one of your major advantages over the competition. No enterprise wants viral licenses in their environment, it’s simply not worth the anxiety when there’s so many options. If you want to compete on being open source your license has to be free.

satvikpendem 2y ago

AGPL doesn't prevent anyone from taking your code wholesale and hosting the entire thing. They didn't make any changes so they don't have to contribute anything back per AGPL. OP can make any part that interacts with it, such as billing and infrastructure code, closed source as they are the copyright holder and thus do not have to abide by AGPL or any license themselves. If they make every contributor sign a CLA, then even better.

malcolmgreaves 2y ago
If you build something interacts over a network with an AGPL’d program, then you are hitting the distributing over a network clause in the license.
- inhumantsar 2y ago
  But that only stipulates that the third party has to make the code available if they've modified it. This is fine if you expect people to want to modify the backend, but it won't stop people who only care about cloning the service. Which is sort of the point, good software made available to as many people as possible as cheaply as possible, but it's not really protection against others who would monetize the software you wrote.
  - xyzzy_plugh 2y ago
    I am not an IP attorney but this is undecided territory: as I understand it your integrations may be considered modifications, and thus may be subject to the terms of the license, depending on the interpretation.
    - satvikpendem 2y ago
      If Amazon can successfully do it such that other companies whose products they were hosting had to relicense to source available from AGPL, then, based on the strength of their lawyers, it is likely that those integrations are not actually needed to be released. And even if they were, it doesn't really matter, people don't use AWS for their source code.