5 ms·

This is actually a big problem for me. I'd like to start a great open source project but then I'd also really like to somewhen get enough money out of it, so I

by kirab 12y ago

This is actually a big problem for me. I'd like to start a great open source project but then I'd also really like to somewhen get enough money out of it, so I could actually care about it full-time. But this seems rather hard to do :(

Fuxy 12y ago
I'm sure there's a license that allows the code to be open however if used for commercial purposes requires companies to contribute back either financially or with code. O wait isn't that GPL? If you're afraid that companies will steal it and not respect the license face it they always do. However if your tool becomes widely used they will eventually have follow the license and if you know with certainty that a certain company is using your too and braking the license you can always sue them. The most devastating thing the community can do now is fund a organization that can sue companies for breaking the terms of free software they are using I'm certain 90% companies are in violation of at least one license. I recommend they start with high frequency trading companies.
- anon1385 12y ago
  >I'm sure there's a license that allows the code to be open however if used for commercial purposes requires companies to contribute back either financially or with code. O wait isn't that GPL? No. The GPL says nothing about people contributing back financially, even if they use the code for commercial purposes. It also only requires people to contribute back code if a) they make changes and b) they distribute the changed version of the library outside their organisation. It's trivial for people to base multi-million dollar business on GPL code and contribute nothing back. It happens all the time. If you think the GPL protects you from that you need to read it more closely. >The most devastating thing the community can do now is fund a organization that can sue companies for breaking the terms of free software they are using Only the copyright holders have standing to sue.
  - VLM 12y ago
    "The GPL says nothing about people contributing back financially" That's kind of the point, if you own the source, you can license it as GPL for the general public or anyone else willing to participate in the ecosystem (aka other GPL compatible projects), or for a modest $100K fee per year I'll license the same code to you under whatever crazy license you like just for your company. "Only the copyright holders have standing to sue." See above, if you're the copyright holder, you can sell a "special" license to special buyers. If you've ever wondered why some GPL projects are "weird" about demanding patches will not be accepted unless you reassign your copyright for those patches to the project, well, now you know. Its only fair after all. Either you'll contribute to the ecosystem by donating your source like we did, or you'll contribute to the ecosystem with a fat stack of cash, but either way, no freeloading bums.
    - the_af 12y ago
      But that isn't a consequence of the GPL, is it? That's a consequence of you being the copyright holder. The misconception that the poster above was correcting was the claim that the GPL requires you to contribute back either code or money: it does not (unless you distribute changes to the code, etc, etc, in which case it's about making your changes available under the GPL, and not at all about giving money to anyone).
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I'm sure there's a license that allows the code to be open however if used for commercial purposes requires companies to contribute back either financially or with code. > O wait isn't that GPL? No, the GPL allows code use for commercial purposes without contributing anything back. Though MySQL AB for a while based its business around pretending this wasn't the case.
FraaJad 12y ago
That's why you have the AGPL. I'm not being snarky here at all. The most recent example of someone taking their product from MIT(or similar OSS) license to AGPL is ServiceStack, .NET library. The author felt that he did not want to continue support this fairly popular library at the expense of his livelihood.
- platz 12y ago
  Interesting that they say "you shouldn't write SASS software". http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html also: We don't see any sensible way to address the SaaSS problem with license conditions on particular programs
CmonDev 12y ago
Every single developer would like to work like that (getting paid to work on own code that you have complete control over).

by kirab 12y ago

Fuxy 12y ago

I'm sure there's a license that allows the code to be open however if used for commercial purposes requires companies to contribute back either financially or with code. O wait isn't that GPL? If you're afraid that companies will steal it and not respect the license face it they always do. However if your tool becomes widely used they will eventually have follow the license and if you know with certainty that a certain company is using your too and braking the license you can always sue them. The most devastating thing the community can do now is fund a organization that can sue companies for breaking the terms of free software they are using I'm certain 90% companies are in violation of at least one license. I recommend they start with high frequency trading companies.

anon1385 12y ago
>I'm sure there's a license that allows the code to be open however if used for commercial purposes requires companies to contribute back either financially or with code. O wait isn't that GPL? No. The GPL says nothing about people contributing back financially, even if they use the code for commercial purposes. It also only requires people to contribute back code if a) they make changes and b) they distribute the changed version of the library outside their organisation. It's trivial for people to base multi-million dollar business on GPL code and contribute nothing back. It happens all the time. If you think the GPL protects you from that you need to read it more closely. >The most devastating thing the community can do now is fund a organization that can sue companies for breaking the terms of free software they are using Only the copyright holders have standing to sue.
- VLM 12y ago
  "The GPL says nothing about people contributing back financially" That's kind of the point, if you own the source, you can license it as GPL for the general public or anyone else willing to participate in the ecosystem (aka other GPL compatible projects), or for a modest $100K fee per year I'll license the same code to you under whatever crazy license you like just for your company. "Only the copyright holders have standing to sue." See above, if you're the copyright holder, you can sell a "special" license to special buyers. If you've ever wondered why some GPL projects are "weird" about demanding patches will not be accepted unless you reassign your copyright for those patches to the project, well, now you know. Its only fair after all. Either you'll contribute to the ecosystem by donating your source like we did, or you'll contribute to the ecosystem with a fat stack of cash, but either way, no freeloading bums.
  - the_af 12y ago
    But that isn't a consequence of the GPL, is it? That's a consequence of you being the copyright holder. The misconception that the poster above was correcting was the claim that the GPL requires you to contribute back either code or money: it does not (unless you distribute changes to the code, etc, etc, in which case it's about making your changes available under the GPL, and not at all about giving money to anyone).
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I'm sure there's a license that allows the code to be open however if used for commercial purposes requires companies to contribute back either financially or with code. > O wait isn't that GPL? No, the GPL allows code use for commercial purposes without contributing anything back. Though MySQL AB for a while based its business around pretending this wasn't the case.

FraaJad 12y ago

That's why you have the AGPL. I'm not being snarky here at all. The most recent example of someone taking their product from MIT(or similar OSS) license to AGPL is ServiceStack, .NET library. The author felt that he did not want to continue support this fairly popular library at the expense of his livelihood.

platz 12y ago
Interesting that they say "you shouldn't write SASS software". http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html also: We don't see any sensible way to address the SaaSS problem with license conditions on particular programs

CmonDev 12y ago

Every single developer would like to work like that (getting paid to work on own code that you have complete control over).