4 ms·

OSS developers chose licenses that allow the world to use their software for free. They can change the license any time they want. What is needed is a license t

OSS developers chose licenses that allow the world to use their software for free. They can change the license any time they want. What is needed is a license that is free for non-commercial/educational use and pay if revenue exceeds a certain number.

growse 2y ago
This has nothing to do with OSS developers being compensated, it's about risk management for the consumer. If you build your business on something that might disappear because someone decides to suddenly stop working on it, it's rational to incentivise them (or others) to not do that.
- MrDarcy 2y ago
  Not do which? Build a business on OSS, or incentivize OSS maintainers to not disappear?
  - growse 2y ago
    The latter. Same is true of all business dependencies, not just OSS ones. It's a large reason why a lot of companies do M&A - it minimizes the risks of not having control over that dependency.
neom 2y ago
This is something Boris Mann has been talking about for a while now. https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-licensing/ https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-licensing/ https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-beyond-licensing-the-evolution-ahead/ https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-beyond-licensi... (I had mentioned to him I wanted the Canadian government to get involved in funding OSS, and that we needed a way for Canadians(and Canadian Corps) to use for free but everyone else would have to pay)
elondaits 2y ago
The problem with “non commercial” exceptions in FOSS licenses is that there’s no good definition of “non commercial”. Interpretations sometimes includes “anything that involves money / payments” even if that’s just distribution costs, someone’s salary, etc. And even if there’s no money, someone could be profiting indirectly. I work for a non profit that creates FOSS and we were explicitly prevented from using something published as CC-BY-SA-NC (by the author) because our completely “free to access” “not for profit” project was being developed by employees working for money (paid for by a private foundation). So what’s “non commercial”? Someone at home by themselves? What happens if they amass online followers and then monetize them somehow? They lose the license retroactively then? Was Linux non commercial when it began? (It should have been) Is it still non commercial? (Many would argue it isn’t).
bryanlarsen 2y ago
> They can change the license any time they want. That's a bit facile. For many projects, changing the license from open source to something that's not open source like you are suggesting will cause the project to die. Adoption will drop to indistinguishable from zero and it will lose any hope of achieving critical mass.
theideaofcoffee 2y ago
It’s a noble goal but as easily gamed as any other license. In this case there would be nothing stopping me from starting up a new entity and then contracting out that single service for $.01 or whatever. No revenue there, no license fee required. Just add another layer on the onion. It’s similar in difficulty as a wealth tax, just add more indirection.

growse 2y ago

This has nothing to do with OSS developers being compensated, it's about risk management for the consumer. If you build your business on something that might disappear because someone decides to suddenly stop working on it, it's rational to incentivise them (or others) to not do that.

MrDarcy 2y ago
Not do which? Build a business on OSS, or incentivize OSS maintainers to not disappear?
- growse 2y ago
  The latter. Same is true of all business dependencies, not just OSS ones. It's a large reason why a lot of companies do M&A - it minimizes the risks of not having control over that dependency.

neom 2y ago

This is something Boris Mann has been talking about for a while now. https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-licensing/ https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-licensing/ https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-beyond-licensing-the-evolution-ahead/ https://bmannconsulting.com/notes/open-source-beyond-licensi... (I had mentioned to him I wanted the Canadian government to get involved in funding OSS, and that we needed a way for Canadians(and Canadian Corps) to use for free but everyone else would have to pay)

elondaits 2y ago

The problem with “non commercial” exceptions in FOSS licenses is that there’s no good definition of “non commercial”. Interpretations sometimes includes “anything that involves money / payments” even if that’s just distribution costs, someone’s salary, etc. And even if there’s no money, someone could be profiting indirectly. I work for a non profit that creates FOSS and we were explicitly prevented from using something published as CC-BY-SA-NC (by the author) because our completely “free to access” “not for profit” project was being developed by employees working for money (paid for by a private foundation). So what’s “non commercial”? Someone at home by themselves? What happens if they amass online followers and then monetize them somehow? They lose the license retroactively then? Was Linux non commercial when it began? (It should have been) Is it still non commercial? (Many would argue it isn’t).

bryanlarsen 2y ago

> They can change the license any time they want. That's a bit facile. For many projects, changing the license from open source to something that's not open source like you are suggesting will cause the project to die. Adoption will drop to indistinguishable from zero and it will lose any hope of achieving critical mass.

theideaofcoffee 2y ago

It’s a noble goal but as easily gamed as any other license. In this case there would be nothing stopping me from starting up a new entity and then contracting out that single service for $.01 or whatever. No revenue there, no license fee required. Just add another layer on the onion. It’s similar in difficulty as a wealth tax, just add more indirection.