Hacker News Reader

Comment by theturtletalks | Hacker News Reader

I about to launch an open core SaaS and all these articles about open source software getting exploited and how copyleft should be the way to go is getting me confused. The software is for e-commerce. So if users use it to make more money, is that considered commercial use? Would the copyleft license require them to get a commercial license then? Would this cause less adoption and less use of the software? What kind of license would protect us from someone coming along and replicating our open core model using the open source app?

View on HN

No, copyleft doesn't prevent commercial use. In fact, preventing commercial use is impossible with the GPL.

Sorry I was under the impression copyleft meant that commercial users must purchase a license and normal users could use it for free. Is this what CockroachBD just did?

From the Open Source Definition[0]:

>The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

From the FSF's "What is free software?" page[1]:

>A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.

Licenses like CockroachDB's with restrictions on commercial use are "source available", which is a form of proprietary software.

[0] https://opensource.org/docs/osd

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en

In my experience advising clients who haven't already spent years reading about open source licenses, those lines confuse more than clarify.

The dominant mode of commercial software development is closed. Many commercial firms forbid the use of copyleft software components that might compel licensing choices about company work.

They moved from Apache2 (a permissive license) to a no-compete license basically.

Copyleft means the license leaves the right-to-copy for the user. But copyleft (AGPL, GPL, LGPL) means that you can't remove the copyleft itself even from the new parts, whereas permissive (Apache, MIT) means that you can.

edit: I mixed up weak copyleft and permissive :o

Apache and MIT are not copyleft, since you do not need to share your code modifications.

weak copyleft would be things like MPL, that limit the modifications you have to share to only parts of the program.

CockroachDBs new license isn't even Open Source following the common OSI definition of the term.

> weak copyleft (Apache, MIT)

The term you're looking for is "permissive license". [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license

No, copyleft means anyone can use it for anything they want, commercial or otherwise, but the product and any modifications to it must be made available to others to do whatever they want with it.

That's absolutely not what copyleft means. The concept of copyleft is the core of viral open source licenses like GPL. CockroachDB did something completely opposite - they migrated away from open source licenses.

Thank you for clearing that up. I’m going to read more into it.

I can offer some general principles, but when it comes time to apply those generalities to your specifics---to give legal advice---you'll need to speak with a lawyer who will stand professionally accountable to you. I won't.

Let's put licenses for public software projects into three general categories: permissive, copyleft, and noncommercial. MIT is a classic permissive license. GPLv2 is a classic copyleft license. Prosperity (https://licensezero.com/licenses/prosperity) is a recent noncommercial license.

Heavily simplifying, and ignoring a lot of details and variations:

Permissive licenses allow you to do more or less whatever you please with the software, as long as you make sure that copies of the software you share with others come along with copies of the permissive license terms and the developer's copyright notices.

Copyleft licenses are permissive licenses plus one extra rule: In at least some circumstances, you have to share and license your own software work the same way. When you have to share, and what code you have to share, varies by specific copyleft license.

Noncommercial licenses are permissive licenses plus a different rule: You may not use the software for commercial purposes.

So what's the deal with developers releasing code under copyleft licenses, and then charging individual customers for "commercial licenses"? To understand that, we have to read the licenses in context. It's not just about what the licenses say, but about how that fits into the broader picture of the software industry.

Most companies producing software insist on keeping their software closed, rather than releasing it in the open. That way they can sell access and permission to use it. These companies will not share their work alike. So they intentionally avoid and reject software under copyleft licenses that would require them to do otherwise.

However, sometimes these firms really want to use software under a copyleft license in their products. If possible, they'll often try to buy a license from the developer that allows them to ignore the copyleft rule, so they can have it both ways.

Meanwhile, these firms often use tons and tons of permissively licensed software. They're free to do that, without paying anyone, so long as they follow the rules about copies of license terms and copyright notices.

Hopefully that gives you a broad picture to work from. Good luck with your project.

Thanks my man. Any articles or documentation you can point me to so I can better understand what kind of license I should use?

You may be confusing the GPL with the Creative Commons "non-commercial" restriction. (I do find the latter a bit confusing myself.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com