6 ms·
The interesting thing is that they would accept pull requests (presumably from the devs they offered that "restricted" access), but might not share the profits
by adyus 13y ago
The interesting thing is that they would accept pull requests (presumably from the devs they offered that "restricted" access), but might not share the profits from charging for atom.io.
Food for thought.
- zeckalpha 13y agoMost other commercialized open source products do the same. One could argue that GitHub has done their share for the open source community already, however.
- jevinskie 13y agoI find that model interesting. It lets me fix any showstopper bugs (possibly with terrible hacks, at first) right now and potentially get it upstreamed later. That is a lot better than any closed source software!
- hdevalence 13y agoIt's much better than closed-source software: they get you to do the work of fixing bugs, but they still keep the money!
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jevinskie 13y agoLast week, I helped a vendor fix a bug in closed source software after reversing binary diffs. I would have definitely welcomed shared source!
- eli 13y agoI think either you or I misread that. I assumed "restrictive license" meant anyone could see the source, but the license would prevent you from creating a competing service. Or possible require you to sign over the copyright for any changes.
- zeckalpha 13y agoSomething like MIT + Non-commercial would be interesting.
- Kerrick 13y agoI've actually been looking for a license like that for a while. A combination of the ease of MIT and the spirit of CC-BY-NC, for source code. I don't want to write one myself since I am not a lawyer and would inevitably get it wrong.
- bayesianhorse 13y agoBe aware that whenever you use a "non-commercial" license, you might as well keep it under a much more restrictive license, because nobody can use it for any purpose in the open without fear of getting sued. There is hardly a definition of "non-commercial" uses in any one jurisdiction. There is no way how this plays out in multiple jurisdictions. CC-NC is a waste of the name Creative Commons. They might as well use "All rights reserved" and then just not go after anyone that copies the material in their basement.
- catern 13y agoWhy not just use the GPL? Only those who are willing to fully open source their product can use your code commercially. I, for one, am quite willing to make that grant to anyone who will go that far.
- pytrin 13y agoIf you're interested, we have a license generator for source-code over at Binpress that creates licenses based on the conditions you set. Similar use-cases to what GitHub is doing with Atom http://www.binpress.com/license/generator http://www.binpress.com/license/generator
- steveklabnik 13y agoIt would then be neither Open Source nor Free Software.
- chrislloyd 13y agoDisclosure: I'm a founder. You may be interested in what we're doing over at Assembly: https://assemblymade.com https://assemblymade.com. Open source products that share profits between contributors.
- Gracana 13y agoThat's really cool and seems like an obvious thing to do. I hope you folks can make it work!
- adyus 13y agoThis does look very interesting. Do you have any stats available, or is everything too new? I'm just wondering if a developer could make a decent monthly living by working 40hrs/week on different projects. Also, what happens if one of these projects wants to break out and go for VC money? Is each contributor's stake a legally binding "share" of the app? Lastly, who owns the idea, in a legal sense? Would Assembly receive all revenue and distribute it, in which case it's logical that it would receive all ownership of ideas?