Language matters.
The idea is neat, but "time-bomb" gives it a negative connotation. Instead maybe call it anti-abandonware licence, or public-benefit timer, or something else. (I'm sure HN can come up with a better phrase).
The idea is neat, but "time-bomb" gives it a negative connotation. Instead maybe call it anti-abandonware licence, or public-benefit timer, or something else. (I'm sure HN can come up with a better phrase).
It wasn't a case of abandoning code more gracefully per se, but simply that after a set period of time, code would be relicensed as open, regardless of the state of the business. So you might have a timeline like:
* Today: release version 1.0.
* 6 months into the future: release version 2.0.
* 12 months into the future: version 1.0 becomes GPL.
* 18 months into the future: version 2.0 becomes GPL.
* 24 months into the future: version 1.0 becomes MIT.
* 30 months into the future: version 2.0 becomes MIT.
And so on. The latest version would be proprietary but source-included, and previous versions get relicensed as soon as they age out.
The other alternative is to have the same mechanism, but with a donations system to speed up the relicensing. If your codebase is worth 30k to you, then if people chip in 30k, it gets relicensed immediately. If people chip in 15k it gets relicensed earlier than it would normally.
It's not a good alternative to open-source, but it's preferable to completely proprietary as it makes it possible for abandonware to be picked up and maintained by third parties, and it offers an alternative mechanism for funding development of code that will eventually be open.
I really like the donation to speed up access system. It feels like a libertarian wet dream for funding projects. It also opens a very interesting feedback channel between the community and the developers.
Like the pills.