|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So yeah... just had to guess all the wrong ones first. Just to make sure. 
Neh! You missed one 
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 793 3/6
π¨β¬β¬β¬π¨
β¬π©π©π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 793 3/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬π¨
β¬π©π©π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
almost in 2
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emacs on a PC?, first used it on a UNIX box many moons ago, most recently on a Raspberry PI
|
|
|
|
|
I used Emacs on Lisp Machines, PDP 11-782, and a VAX 10. The PDP and VAX versions were outstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
#Worldle #576 6/6 (100%)
π©π©π©π©π¨β¬οΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨βοΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨β¬
οΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨βοΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨β¬
οΈ
π©π©π©π©π©π
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Here's my story that you may find interesting.
First of all, I posted the following question on a StackExchange site and they immediately closed it.
Posted Question
I have a completed project (SaaS) that I want to release as Open Source.
However, I want to create a tiered payment system which would be something like the following:
1. Via my Site: Using the SaaS solution via my web site: $X per month/year
2. Personal use (running SaaS on their own server & using it theirself): Free
3. "Small" Professional Use Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Small would be defined as Annual Revenue figure less than $XXX,XXX
4. "Large" Professional Use: Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Large defined as Annual Revenue figure greater than $XXX,XXX
5. Royalty-Free: Using SaaS as a subscription-based service: One-time payment $XX,XXX
Modern License?
Is there a modern License which will allow me to:
Open source the code (so everyone can see it change it etc.)
Still charge for its use?
If there isn't a license like that, what are some reasons that there isn't?
Reasons?
Are there legal reasons that this just can't be done?
Or, is this not done because people will steal the open source and use it without paying?
How About A Nice Balance?
It seems like this would be a nice balance between:
1. allow source code to be fixed/inspected/etc. by users
2. allow a developer to live off the work that she has created?
Since I didn't get an answer I had to read a ton.
After Extensive Research
I discovered there is a thing called Source-Available software[^] which isn't OSS.
My Question For This Forum
Why isn't there a nice license like the one I describe above?
One where intellectual property (and all that work we do as devs) is protected.
But, where we can still make the source open?
I also read this long article about Open Source Dual Licensing[^] which means:
1. provide a GPL (General Public License) which is OSS but requires users to open up their software too.
2. PRovides a second license so the user can "buy their way out of having to open up their software".
But that's not really what I'm talking about either.
Here's What I'm Talking About
I'm talking about making my software completely open for examination, modification etc. but then if they use the software in a certain way then they have to pay.
That provides some help back to the original developer who created this useful thing when some MEGA-COMPANIES (Google, MS, Apple, IBM, giant companies) come along and use it.
What do you think? Why don't we have a license like that? (Or, do we, and I haven't heard of it?)
Richard M. Stallman & Original Open Source Hopes
My idea would seem to even fit in with the original hopes that Richard Stallman had when he created the idea of OSS (Open Source Software).
Here's the original thing that happened that sparked Stallman to create this idea:
In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these features to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be able to freely modify the software they use
EDIT / Update
Here's something I found that is an interseting article: How to Charge for your Open Source | Mike Perham[^]
Basically helps explain dual licensing.
modified 20-Aug-23 19:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious, what reason was given for closing the question?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it does but not directly and I had to read about 5 side articles to understand that it was the answer. I'm not sure why they couldn't allow the question to be answered with:
"There is no license like that in OSS"
But I don't care anyways since I have the answer for myself. Having a good, clear, solid answer on the site would only help others who had the same question as I had. 
|
|
|
|
|
Now you can ask the same question again and quickly provide your own answer ( and mention it is a duplicate of TT closed question).
|
|
|
|
|
Look at GPL3. It makes users also open up their software, but I figured this wouldn't be a problem except for the types of users that you'd want payment from, in which case they can buy their way out.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your notes.
You are correct and that would create a Dual-License (where they buy their way out).
The thing that none of these covers is a "Licensing Tier".
Basically, if you use my Complete Program (the SaaS) and your yearly revenue exceeds X dollars then you pay $X per user.
If you use my Complete Program and your yearly revenue are less than X dollars then you pay less $.
Maybe I need a lawyer for such a thing.
It seems like such an obvious thing, that doesn't seem to exist.
It seems like this kind of thing could :
1. keep software open.
2. Make big Companies pay for dev's hard work
3. Make little Companies pay reasonable amount for dev's hard work.
4. Make hobbyists pay extremely small or nothing.
And, the point of making my SaaS Open Source is basically marketing from a sole proprietorship's type of experience.
People could see it and use it as hobbyist / students and then learn how it works and then later suggest to companies as a way to solve a problem that companies would pay for.
This would help single open source devs get attention and finally get paid too.
|
|
|
|
|
When they "buy their way out", you should be able to transition to the payment system you outlined.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks so much for discussing this with me.
I'm not sure that in my case the "buyout" would work, because of what this article says, Can You Charge for Open-Source Software? Making Money from Open-Source Projects[^]
It states that the only reason you can really charge for is:
1. delivery services - for delivering the source code
2. charging them a license if they base software off of mine or (as in most cases use my component in their software)
In my case, I'm saying, "I'd like it to be open but then charge them if they use it to a certain degree -- (hundreds or thousands of users, for example).
I believe the way OSS works with all of OSS licenses is that you can just charge them for works based upon your work.
But, I could be interpreting it wrong.
Thanks again for the great discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
My student days were before OSS became a concept. Yet, the OS for the mainframe at the University was distributed in source form, and the computer center staff made local modifications before assembling it (yes, the OS was written in assembly code). Every update was paid, but I have been told that the highest cost (and reason for the University skipping many updates) was the manpower cost of the local modifications.
My first employer was a mini/supermini manufacturer, with an OS that didn't allow dynamic addition of drivers, so each machine came with a tailored OS build for that specific hardware configuration. The delivery included a hardcopy printout of this tailored build, but not on a machine readable medium. One customer needed to interface some medical equipment for which there was no driver, and he asked if he could get access to the OS code in machine readable form. That was against company policy - "But you've got the OS source code, why don't you just type it in?" And he did! (He was later employed in the OS group of the manufacturer.)
I've got a microfiche copy of VAX/VMS from the same time period. The original DEC version certainly was payware, but again: You could easily obtain a non machine readable version, to read and learn from, but not intended for forking.
In those days, thousands of open source programs were accessible at ftp sites (ftp.funet.fi as one of the biggest one). A fair share of them was 'begware', presenting a header telling that you might try out the program for 30 days, but to use it after that, you have to pay so-and-so much to this and that account. The most common local modification was to delete the begging 
So there are many examples of open source payware. There is no reason why you shouldn't do the same thing. You just must trust your fellowman to be honest and not to rip off the code and use it outside your control.
I never heard of any standard licensing terms for this kind of code publication, though. The closest I can think of is Norwegian copyright law, stating that you may make single copies of protected works for non-commercial purposes. You must do the copying yourself, you cannot hire anyone to make the copy for you, and even though you are entitled to make copies, in plural, you must do it as 'single' copies, not a serial production of a hundred copies in one sweep. There are a few other restrictions as well, but I've got at at least a couple hundred perfectly legal music CD and a few dozen movies.
(But go to our neighbor country Denmark: At least in my youth, taping music you heard on the radio was strictly illegal. It may still be illegal, for all I know. So don't assume that all European, or even Scandinavian countries are alike!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may want to read this book, Entreprenerd (Building a Multi-Million-Dollar Business with Open Source Software) by Bruno Lowagie, the original developer of iText, an open-source Java PDF library. The book documented his journey of making a business of his open-source library.
His PDF library is dual-licensed. Many developers pirated his library without paying but he prefers his users pirate his library than using his competitors' library, in the hope that they buy a commercial license in the future. It is about mind-share vs market-share.
Feel free to click the link I provided. It is not an affiliate link.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks so much for reading my post and joining the conversation.
I will definitely check out the link and book.
I have used that particular component in the past also so it sounds very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
In my honest opinion, if your purpose is to charge customers for your software and make money, don't make your software open-source. Even Red Hat found it hard when it made its source code freely available and its competitors got all its bug fixes and features for free.
Even the maker of Avalonia UI closed its source code in the hope that Microsoft would buy the company sometime in the future. When you open-source your software, everyone has your IP. It makes it useful to other developers but useless to the creator in monetary terms.
modified 21-Aug-23 3:29am.
|
|
|
|
|
Shao Voon Wong wrote: In my honest opinion, if your purpose is to charge customers for your software and make money, don't make your software open-source.
Shao Voon Wong wrote: It makes it useful to other developers but useless to the creator in monetary terms.
I believe you are right on 100% with both of those statements.
It is actually quite painful to discover this because I thought being open source would be :
1. really cool and interesting and a (sideways) way of marketing the project to devs.
2. allow devs to see the code so they could vet it themselves and see how it works.
But, from everything I'm reading going the OSS route makes it basically impossible to make money -- unless it is from a side thing like maintenance or support or extending the software.
That was even more confirmed by the Bruno Lowagie link (and bunch of reading I did) that you provided.
Thanks again for the input and discussion, you've really helped me understand this.
Honestly it makes me sad too, because it kind of quashes the dream of "creating something cool and helpful and just putting it out there and then being able to support yourself".
Instead, it has to become this Official Thing that protects itself like a huge monster that will threaten or destroy anyone who tries to steal it.
Not really the software development dream I was hoping for. But I am naive.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you do it as you described? Yes.
Why is there no 'standard' license for that? Because there are too many variations.
And if you are going to make money then you should really talk to a lawyer. You will need to understand liability, taxes, etc.
Variations? For example I have seen ones where the free tier depended on how many users there were, the activity based on different time periods, how many servers it ran on (complicated by cores), what industries it what used in (for example not allowing government/military use), and others.
I have seen a license which allowed just inspection but did not allow making money from it. More often now I see cases that do not allow it in any 'commercial' use. Which is why I always actually read licenses for third party libraries. Versus what very often in my experience seems to be that developers think that because they found it on the web it can be used without regard to the license.
raddevus wrote: Richard Stallman had when he created the idea of OSS
I doubt that attempting to wrap it in a ideologic context is going to mean anything.
|
|
|
|
|
I see now that all OSS is really just a "poison pill".
Think about it -- if you use the GPL then you require that any software based off yours is also free.
That means that only large companies who will provide support, documentation etc. will ever make any money from the software -- but no money goes to the original (ass-in-chair) developer.
I'm sure that this is what Stallman originally intended.
If you watch this video by Bruno Lowagie of iText (PDF converter) you will see the agony of doing OSS.
Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^]
So the dream of creating an amazing system as a Developer is dead.
Instead it is the nightmare of creating a Business Which Owns the System and bullies everyone to pay for it. (Does this sound like MS, Google, etc. ?) Not the dream I was looking for.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Yeah, makes sense in the world of Devs. We're not going to put up with the pop-ups. 