5 ms·

Thank you for your suggestion. You’re absolutely right; we are actively exploring licensing options, including AGPL, to ensure that our product remains protecte

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
        What are you talking about? I don't know where you live or what project you are referring to, but it's not possible to retroactively remove someone's rights in the American legal system by publishing a new license. If you committed code under a MIT license without signing anything else, you don't lose anything when later versions are published under BSL, AGPL, or whatever. The fact that the MIT license arguably allows willy nilly relicensing by anyone should be seen as a flaw with that license, not BSL. Also the context of this conversation is what license is appropriate for a new project. It makes less sense to apply a BSL to a MIT licensed project that has been around for a while than it does to start off with a BSL.
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.

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
        What are you talking about? I don't know where you live or what project you are referring to, but it's not possible to retroactively remove someone's rights in the American legal system by publishing a new license. If you committed code under a MIT license without signing anything else, you don't lose anything when later versions are published under BSL, AGPL, or whatever. The fact that the MIT license arguably allows willy nilly relicensing by anyone should be seen as a flaw with that license, not BSL. Also the context of this conversation is what license is appropriate for a new project. It makes less sense to apply a BSL to a MIT licensed project that has been around for a while than it does to start off with a BSL.

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.