Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmerl | Hacker News Reader

Bad idea when it's presented as a substitute for FOSS. You can charge for support of FOSS based products as well.

I agree that it shouldn't be called FOSS, but let's stop kidding ourselves about the 'charge for support' model. Few kinds of software require the kind of support that would keep a single developer off the street. Most of the types that do can rarely be supported by a single developer.

I like the idea of a paid-source licensing program. I just don't know how it could work, long-term.

One model that does work quite well: release code under a copyleft license, and charge for licenses/exceptions that allow linking to proprietary software.

Next time you're thinking of releasing some code under an all-permissive license, consider using a copyleft license instead, which leaves you with options in the future.

The other option would be open core (crippled open source). However, I dislike both, I still would prefer supported source as the goal is more clear.

I dislike the "open core" model as well. However, I don't see anything wrong with the copyleft, "release your source too or pay us" model. That provides very similar results: fellow developers can collaborate on the source, and companies building something they don't want to share can pay for an alternative license/exception so they don't have to. But instead of using a proprietary license to do so, that model uses a standard FOSS license, and works with the rest of the FOSS ecosystem.

Copyleft only affects changes to the original work. Usage with proprietary software is not affected.

While that model does help those who are developing libraries, it doesn't address the problems presented by open source applications. There's plenty of open source applications for which the charge-for-support and dual-licensing models don't create enough funds to assist development.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com