6 ms·

There's a metric ton of stuff in there that tells me how good it's going to be for everybody but I see very little that tells me how good it will be for me, the

There's a metric ton of stuff in there that tells me how good it's going to be for everybody but I see very little that tells me how good it will be for me, the creator of my software. I spent 7 years building an app [1]. The current version comes in at just under 100KLOC. That thing is almost ready to ship so I need to start thinking about a licensing model. I have yet to see a compelling reason to make me just give my work away. After all the work I've put into this thing I'm selfish. I want to benefit from what I created so honest question - what's in it for ME if I open source? https://www.wittenburg.co.uk/Entry.aspx?id=0a505400-5bf6-4a6d-b107-6b4b797f33ae https://www.wittenburg.co.uk/Entry.aspx?id=0a505400-5bf6-4a6...

leephillips 12y ago
Your app looks great, but I won't even consider using it unless it's open source. I need to know I can modify it (for my own use), see what it does, and recompile it if I need to when I upgrade my operating system if you've stopped supporting it. I would have no problem paying you for software like this if I decide to use it, but I wouldn't use it without the source even if it were free. Yes, commercial open source software is a thing; a thing people often forget about. You might be worried that people will steal your program if it's open source. Some people will, just as they steal books, which are the most familiar commercial open source thing. But authors and publishers make a living anyway. EDIT: Apparently the concept of commercial open source software is so confusing to some people that, bizarrely enough, they describe this comment as supporting the "free software" movement.
- domador 12y ago
  This sounds like the orthodox "free software" position, which I think is espoused by a very small, ideological, and vocal segment of the general population. I think in practical terms, average people use software that's useful to them, regardless of whether it's open source, and regardless of the longevity of the operating system for which the program is compiled. (The lifetime of Windows or Mac OS, whatever it may turn out to be, is long enough for them.) As an aside, my friends and I still use a closed-source tournament management Windows program whose last version was published in 1998. It's not the greatest, but it works well enough (and for many people in many use cases, "well enough" is more than plenty.)
  - julie1 12y ago
    We fought by pushing BillionsLOC of quality software because we believed in a defined freedom. (some actually did not care, for real, but most cared) We made it a name, we made the rules by backing up our ideals with our code, and our definition of free software (sometimes great (python, Perl, postfix..) sometimes worthless (mine for instance ;) ). Call me a vocal integrist. It may be true. But we all worked hard to achieve where we are today. We fought to define Free Software in very precise way to backup our claim for freedom. CC (/NC) won't change the definition of free software without the people who defined it being a little pissed. You cannot take our freedom away to define what free software is, because we all collectively took part in it thanks to theses licenses. And for the record, I may be a so called integrists. But, making fun of my values because you don't like them or they don't suit you, is what integrists do.
    - j_s 12y ago
      Have to admit this makes me curious to know more about your contributions!
      - julie1 12y ago
        - a bot self hosted on my server to pickup girls on dating sites that conveniently disappeared; - a lot of trolls (Don't check I am a real troll); - some actual freelancing jobs where I was pretty much a failure; - took part in a website in a an uninteresting minor foreign language about free software; - and I took part in some of obscure gatherings where people talked about free software like benjamin. I am an average no one (you can actually check my background, I am a failure without any false modesty with ultra minor contributions, but I am not really ashamed). I am little bit excessive, but I can make people smile while talking about free software. I have the weired idea however it does not matter. I really don't think any open source programming language will accept my revolutionary idea that objects should follow the 17 rules of linear algebra (I swear I am convinced my idea is as brilliant as checking PRNG with Taken's series, or using L1 geometry instead of Euclidean while working with computers, and I swear I know I will fail and I am a bit crazy). I think I may be the member of the family you don't want to show to your neighbors/fiancée. But still I am part of the family :) It's kind of cool, though. There is nothing wrong in not being successful or as fun as linus torvalds. I am pretty happy with it and I guess I am not alone in not feeling alone doing free software without being a star. Maybe like probably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ROG5728 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ROG5728 A gun nerd that cares the truth is said about the H&K P11. I think the idea is more important than who you are. Even though I am really no one, it is fun, and I like it... the way it is... I am pretty conservative. Sorry.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Why is that bizarre? The fact that you concentrate on your rights as the end user to modify the software is exactly what the Free Software movement defends, unlike Open Source which focuses on the superiority of the development process. And the Free Software movement also supports selling your software. In the words of rms, "redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it."[1] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
  - leephillips 12y ago
    (1) I said nothing about any imaginary "rights" to modify software; I said that I would choose to avoid software that I couldn't modify, for practical reasons. (2) I made an analogy to books to explain what I meant by commercial open source software. The author or publisher would retain the copyright, and I would have no rights to redistribute sources or compiled versions. This, of course, is directly contrary to what the free software movement advocates.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I thought even Microsoft had given in to OSI's definition of "open source". So you mean open source as in source available, like PGP was. Fair enough.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >And the Free Software movement also supports selling your software. Yeah, but in a way that clashes with most real life ways to sell software. Basically, if you're not selling support or add-on services (or if your software doesn't need either) you can't really much sell "free software". Sure, you'll find 2-3 people that have done it. I doubt you'll find 10.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I'm actually one of them :) the company I work for - ThinkOpen - is based on developing modules for, hosting and supporting a FOSS platform called Odoo, and there are hundreds like us worldwide. I think you're underestimating the number of people who sell Free Software. NewsBlur, for example, is available on GitHub, yet still has thousands of premium users. In the end, it's not like having a proprietary license will keep it from The Pirate Bay. As long as your price is reasonable and buying is less of a hassle than getting a free version, enough people will pay.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Your app looks great, but I won't even consider using it unless it's open source. I need to know I can modify it (for my own use), see what it does, and recompile it if I need to when I upgrade my operating system if you've stopped supporting it. Yeah, but the parent doesn't have to care much about your use case (if he doesn't want to), because that's extremely atypical, and millions of units of proprietary software are sold every year just fine.
- superuser2 12y ago
  The commercial open source model may work for Redhat because it caters to enterprise customers who need commercial support, but this is somewhat intellectually dishonest. Redhat doesn't sell software; it sells support. If you don't want support, you get CentOS. If your users are ordinary people - not corporations that need to placate their boards - there is no reason to expect that you would be able to pay for development time by selling support.
  - slashdotaccount 12y ago
    If I wasn't able to contribute to the FLOSS I use, I would definitely buy Redhat even if I didn't need their commercial support, simply because they fund a lot of development work on the FLOSS I use.
  - ternaryoperator 12y ago
    "...this is somewhat intellectually dishonest. Redhat doesn't sell software; it sells support." Not seeing the dishonesty. RedHat spends huge amounts of money developing software. They sell one version with support, they offer a slightly different version for free. What's dishonest?
julie1 12y ago
If you feel that way don't open source. There is nothing wrong about it. CC-NC has something wrong: it parasites the meaning of free software «buzz/success» but is is far from being free as in free speech: free software -as commonly accepted by the two antagonists community known as open source/free software- must grant you the radical non discriminative freedom of use a software whoever you are, whatever you think, whatever you wish to do with the software: including making money. Why? Pick up your reasons for this, they are as good as they can be. Be it : - it is better for interoperability to share correct code so that internet works better (ISC DHCPd, bind, TCP/IP stack...); - I am altruistic (FSF); - I want to make myself a name by having my code seen as a business card (some projects github); - I want to prevent competitor to do a lock in on code (IBM, sun); - fill in your evil plan for world domination through a value of externality (openBSD, Apple, me).... Good or bad reasons, or morally biased don't matter. Free Software open source do grant you the right to do whatever the frack you want with a software, because it is about free as in free speech. There are agreement on what free software is (FSF 4 freedom/Open Source Initiative) and NC (Non Commercial) do not fit in the free software criteria. I repeat myself: there is nothing wrong in disagreeing and choosing a proprietary licence. I do say, there is something wrong in pretending to abide by Free Software/open source conventions and not doing it: it is cheating to your users, it is deceptive and delusive. BTW, I (very) loosely was in inspiration on this topic, so I can grant you that is the spirit in Benjamin Mako Hill thoughts, and I can provide french transations. OSI : http://opensource.org/ http://opensource.org/ open source initiative (bad guys); FSF (Good guys with weired hats, beards and rituals) https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definitions admitted by good and bad guys : https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html commonly referred as the 4 freedoms. why CC are a fraud (fr): http://www.libroscope.org/Vers-une-liberte-definie-Creative http://www.libroscope.org/Vers-une-liberte-definie-Creative WTFPL : The smallest exact Free Software Licence : http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/
monochr 12y ago
>so honest question - what's in it for ME if I open source? You lock the market. Once there is an open source project in a niche of high enough quality, especially if it comes out first, it will essentially never be dislodged and you can get corporate licenses for support/priority bug fixes. Also in your case: encrypted. There is no app outside those that come pre-shipped with their platform that does encryption, isn't open source and is popular. Lastly free work. To this day I am still shocked when I have people submit patches to code I've written without being asked/paid.
rwl 12y ago
> After all the work I've put into this thing I'm selfish. I want to benefit from what I created... You are evidently aware of free/open source software, so I'm curious: if you thought that other people would be interested enough in this software that they might pay for it, why did you put in all the effort up front to develop it yourself? Why didn't you instead make the project open source much earlier, so that you wouldn't have to pay all the costs of developing it yourself? I'm not being sarcastic or rhetorical; I'm asking because I can't imagine starting a large software project like this and not wanting to get the benefits of open source development. If you are considering open source now, why did you decide not to do it earlier? > what's in it for ME if I open source? At this point, there may or may not be much you can get from this project in the way of monetary reward by open sourcing it. That depends on who would use this software, whether they'd pay you to support it or customize it, etc. But apart from money, you'd likely get: other people reviewing, testing, debugging and maintaining your code; other people packaging your code for distribution on various platforms; other people helping to support users of your software on mailing lists and in forums; other people writing documentation; the satisfaction of providing something useful to others; and praise and thanks from users of FOSS. None of those benefits come in the form of money, but they are nevertheless non-trivial.
- jimmaswell 12y ago
  >if you thought that other people would be interested enough in this software that they might pay for it, why did you put in all the effort up front to develop it yourself? Why didn't you instead make the project open source much earlier, so that you wouldn't have to pay all the costs of developing it yourself? "If you knew people might pay you money for it, why didn't you make it so they didn't have to, instead of making them pay money for it?" What?
  - rwl 12y ago
    My point was this: presumably, Spearchucker wanted this software because it was useful to him, not just because it might be useful to someone else. Getting it had a cost: the time and effort to develop it. He could either take on that whole cost himself up front, and try to recover it from other users when the program was finished, or he could share the cost with other users starting from an earlier stage by starting an open source project. If you're primarily concerned with having the program completed, why take the first path? The second path seems like it will bring you to that goal more quickly and for less time, effort, and risk. It just makes more sense. And even if you're primarily concerned with making money, the second path can still make more sense. Using funding mechanisms like Kickstarter, you can be paid to write software that you release under an open source license -- and since your backers commit to payment up front, before you write the code, you don't have to take on the risk that no one buys a license for the completed program. So again, why go the other route?
j_s 12y ago
Many developers dual-license their software under the GPL3 or Affero license and then separately offer a commercial license (possibly offering options for paid support). This allows other developers to contribute and even re-sell (open source only + their support) but ensures that all improvements made in this manner are available to everyone. (Note that in this scenario [1]contributions can be a bit tricky since they need to be dual licensed which usually means a developer CLA, and [2]companies and developers often get away with licensing violations.) In general, contributors will prefer more liberal licenses. In any case, thanks for being willing to consider all the options. For the most part I'd guess the primary benefit would be signing yourself up as benevolent dictator nurturing a community of developers (in addition to users) around your new tool.
jessaustin 12y ago
My understanding was that the license they're talking about is intended more for "cultural" works like music or film than for software. The argument against -NC for software is far stronger, IMHO, than that for cultural works.

leephillips 12y ago

Your app looks great, but I won't even consider using it unless it's open source. I need to know I can modify it (for my own use), see what it does, and recompile it if I need to when I upgrade my operating system if you've stopped supporting it. I would have no problem paying you for software like this if I decide to use it, but I wouldn't use it without the source even if it were free. Yes, commercial open source software is a thing; a thing people often forget about. You might be worried that people will steal your program if it's open source. Some people will, just as they steal books, which are the most familiar commercial open source thing. But authors and publishers make a living anyway. EDIT: Apparently the concept of commercial open source software is so confusing to some people that, bizarrely enough, they describe this comment as supporting the "free software" movement.

domador 12y ago
This sounds like the orthodox "free software" position, which I think is espoused by a very small, ideological, and vocal segment of the general population. I think in practical terms, average people use software that's useful to them, regardless of whether it's open source, and regardless of the longevity of the operating system for which the program is compiled. (The lifetime of Windows or Mac OS, whatever it may turn out to be, is long enough for them.) As an aside, my friends and I still use a closed-source tournament management Windows program whose last version was published in 1998. It's not the greatest, but it works well enough (and for many people in many use cases, "well enough" is more than plenty.)
- julie1 12y ago
  We fought by pushing BillionsLOC of quality software because we believed in a defined freedom. (some actually did not care, for real, but most cared) We made it a name, we made the rules by backing up our ideals with our code, and our definition of free software (sometimes great (python, Perl, postfix..) sometimes worthless (mine for instance ;) ). Call me a vocal integrist. It may be true. But we all worked hard to achieve where we are today. We fought to define Free Software in very precise way to backup our claim for freedom. CC (/NC) won't change the definition of free software without the people who defined it being a little pissed. You cannot take our freedom away to define what free software is, because we all collectively took part in it thanks to theses licenses. And for the record, I may be a so called integrists. But, making fun of my values because you don't like them or they don't suit you, is what integrists do.
  - j_s 12y ago
    Have to admit this makes me curious to know more about your contributions!
    - julie1 12y ago
      - a bot self hosted on my server to pickup girls on dating sites that conveniently disappeared; - a lot of trolls (Don't check I am a real troll); - some actual freelancing jobs where I was pretty much a failure; - took part in a website in a an uninteresting minor foreign language about free software; - and I took part in some of obscure gatherings where people talked about free software like benjamin. I am an average no one (you can actually check my background, I am a failure without any false modesty with ultra minor contributions, but I am not really ashamed). I am little bit excessive, but I can make people smile while talking about free software. I have the weired idea however it does not matter. I really don't think any open source programming language will accept my revolutionary idea that objects should follow the 17 rules of linear algebra (I swear I am convinced my idea is as brilliant as checking PRNG with Taken's series, or using L1 geometry instead of Euclidean while working with computers, and I swear I know I will fail and I am a bit crazy). I think I may be the member of the family you don't want to show to your neighbors/fiancée. But still I am part of the family :) It's kind of cool, though. There is nothing wrong in not being successful or as fun as linus torvalds. I am pretty happy with it and I guess I am not alone in not feeling alone doing free software without being a star. Maybe like probably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ROG5728 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ROG5728 A gun nerd that cares the truth is said about the H&K P11. I think the idea is more important than who you are. Even though I am really no one, it is fun, and I like it... the way it is... I am pretty conservative. Sorry.
icebraining 12y ago
Why is that bizarre? The fact that you concentrate on your rights as the end user to modify the software is exactly what the Free Software movement defends, unlike Open Source which focuses on the superiority of the development process. And the Free Software movement also supports selling your software. In the words of rms, "redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it."[1] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- leephillips 12y ago
  (1) I said nothing about any imaginary "rights" to modify software; I said that I would choose to avoid software that I couldn't modify, for practical reasons. (2) I made an analogy to books to explain what I meant by commercial open source software. The author or publisher would retain the copyright, and I would have no rights to redistribute sources or compiled versions. This, of course, is directly contrary to what the free software movement advocates.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I thought even Microsoft had given in to OSI's definition of "open source". So you mean open source as in source available, like PGP was. Fair enough.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >And the Free Software movement also supports selling your software. Yeah, but in a way that clashes with most real life ways to sell software. Basically, if you're not selling support or add-on services (or if your software doesn't need either) you can't really much sell "free software". Sure, you'll find 2-3 people that have done it. I doubt you'll find 10.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I'm actually one of them :) the company I work for - ThinkOpen - is based on developing modules for, hosting and supporting a FOSS platform called Odoo, and there are hundreds like us worldwide. I think you're underestimating the number of people who sell Free Software. NewsBlur, for example, is available on GitHub, yet still has thousands of premium users. In the end, it's not like having a proprietary license will keep it from The Pirate Bay. As long as your price is reasonable and buying is less of a hassle than getting a free version, enough people will pay.
coldtea 12y ago
>Your app looks great, but I won't even consider using it unless it's open source. I need to know I can modify it (for my own use), see what it does, and recompile it if I need to when I upgrade my operating system if you've stopped supporting it. Yeah, but the parent doesn't have to care much about your use case (if he doesn't want to), because that's extremely atypical, and millions of units of proprietary software are sold every year just fine.
superuser2 12y ago
The commercial open source model may work for Redhat because it caters to enterprise customers who need commercial support, but this is somewhat intellectually dishonest. Redhat doesn't sell software; it sells support. If you don't want support, you get CentOS. If your users are ordinary people - not corporations that need to placate their boards - there is no reason to expect that you would be able to pay for development time by selling support.
- slashdotaccount 12y ago
  If I wasn't able to contribute to the FLOSS I use, I would definitely buy Redhat even if I didn't need their commercial support, simply because they fund a lot of development work on the FLOSS I use.
- ternaryoperator 12y ago
  "...this is somewhat intellectually dishonest. Redhat doesn't sell software; it sells support." Not seeing the dishonesty. RedHat spends huge amounts of money developing software. They sell one version with support, they offer a slightly different version for free. What's dishonest?

julie1 12y ago

If you feel that way don't open source. There is nothing wrong about it. CC-NC has something wrong: it parasites the meaning of free software «buzz/success» but is is far from being free as in free speech: free software -as commonly accepted by the two antagonists community known as open source/free software- must grant you the radical non discriminative freedom of use a software whoever you are, whatever you think, whatever you wish to do with the software: including making money. Why? Pick up your reasons for this, they are as good as they can be. Be it : - it is better for interoperability to share correct code so that internet works better (ISC DHCPd, bind, TCP/IP stack...); - I am altruistic (FSF); - I want to make myself a name by having my code seen as a business card (some projects github); - I want to prevent competitor to do a lock in on code (IBM, sun); - fill in your evil plan for world domination through a value of externality (openBSD, Apple, me).... Good or bad reasons, or morally biased don't matter. Free Software open source do grant you the right to do whatever the frack you want with a software, because it is about free as in free speech. There are agreement on what free software is (FSF 4 freedom/Open Source Initiative) and NC (Non Commercial) do not fit in the free software criteria. I repeat myself: there is nothing wrong in disagreeing and choosing a proprietary licence. I do say, there is something wrong in pretending to abide by Free Software/open source conventions and not doing it: it is cheating to your users, it is deceptive and delusive. BTW, I (very) loosely was in inspiration on this topic, so I can grant you that is the spirit in Benjamin Mako Hill thoughts, and I can provide french transations. OSI : http://opensource.org/ http://opensource.org/ open source initiative (bad guys); FSF (Good guys with weired hats, beards and rituals) https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Free Software Definitions admitted by good and bad guys : https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html commonly referred as the 4 freedoms. why CC are a fraud (fr): http://www.libroscope.org/Vers-une-liberte-definie-Creative http://www.libroscope.org/Vers-une-liberte-definie-Creative WTFPL : The smallest exact Free Software Licence : http://www.wtfpl.net/ http://www.wtfpl.net/

monochr 12y ago

>so honest question - what's in it for ME if I open source? You lock the market. Once there is an open source project in a niche of high enough quality, especially if it comes out first, it will essentially never be dislodged and you can get corporate licenses for support/priority bug fixes. Also in your case: encrypted. There is no app outside those that come pre-shipped with their platform that does encryption, isn't open source and is popular. Lastly free work. To this day I am still shocked when I have people submit patches to code I've written without being asked/paid.

rwl 12y ago

> After all the work I've put into this thing I'm selfish. I want to benefit from what I created... You are evidently aware of free/open source software, so I'm curious: if you thought that other people would be interested enough in this software that they might pay for it, why did you put in all the effort up front to develop it yourself? Why didn't you instead make the project open source much earlier, so that you wouldn't have to pay all the costs of developing it yourself? I'm not being sarcastic or rhetorical; I'm asking because I can't imagine starting a large software project like this and not wanting to get the benefits of open source development. If you are considering open source now, why did you decide not to do it earlier? > what's in it for ME if I open source? At this point, there may or may not be much you can get from this project in the way of monetary reward by open sourcing it. That depends on who would use this software, whether they'd pay you to support it or customize it, etc. But apart from money, you'd likely get: other people reviewing, testing, debugging and maintaining your code; other people packaging your code for distribution on various platforms; other people helping to support users of your software on mailing lists and in forums; other people writing documentation; the satisfaction of providing something useful to others; and praise and thanks from users of FOSS. None of those benefits come in the form of money, but they are nevertheless non-trivial.

jimmaswell 12y ago
>if you thought that other people would be interested enough in this software that they might pay for it, why did you put in all the effort up front to develop it yourself? Why didn't you instead make the project open source much earlier, so that you wouldn't have to pay all the costs of developing it yourself? "If you knew people might pay you money for it, why didn't you make it so they didn't have to, instead of making them pay money for it?" What?
- rwl 12y ago
  My point was this: presumably, Spearchucker wanted this software because it was useful to him, not just because it might be useful to someone else. Getting it had a cost: the time and effort to develop it. He could either take on that whole cost himself up front, and try to recover it from other users when the program was finished, or he could share the cost with other users starting from an earlier stage by starting an open source project. If you're primarily concerned with having the program completed, why take the first path? The second path seems like it will bring you to that goal more quickly and for less time, effort, and risk. It just makes more sense. And even if you're primarily concerned with making money, the second path can still make more sense. Using funding mechanisms like Kickstarter, you can be paid to write software that you release under an open source license -- and since your backers commit to payment up front, before you write the code, you don't have to take on the risk that no one buys a license for the completed program. So again, why go the other route?

j_s 12y ago

Many developers dual-license their software under the GPL3 or Affero license and then separately offer a commercial license (possibly offering options for paid support). This allows other developers to contribute and even re-sell (open source only + their support) but ensures that all improvements made in this manner are available to everyone. (Note that in this scenario [1]contributions can be a bit tricky since they need to be dual licensed which usually means a developer CLA, and [2]companies and developers often get away with licensing violations.) In general, contributors will prefer more liberal licenses. In any case, thanks for being willing to consider all the options. For the most part I'd guess the primary benefit would be signing yourself up as benevolent dictator nurturing a community of developers (in addition to users) around your new tool.

jessaustin 12y ago

My understanding was that the license they're talking about is intended more for "cultural" works like music or film than for software. The argument against -NC for software is far stronger, IMHO, than that for cultural works.