Hacker News Reader

Comment by open-source-ux | Hacker News Reader

There is another option, unpopular with some open source advocates, the source-only option. You simply sell your software product (with source code) for a price. That's it. Simple and uncomplicated.

Your customers get the source of your app. They can modify the code to suit their needs. But unlike open source, they cannot re-distribute the app. Very few companies would object to this.

Some popular and profitable projects that follow the source-only option are Kirby CMS and Craft CMS. Both these projects publish their source code on GitHub and rely on the honesty of their customers to pay for the product. This means that even people who would never purchase the products can still study and learn from the source code.

View on HN

An alternative to this option that might make both camps happy is to use the Business Source License [1] that is source-only for new changes, and automatically become open source after a certain time (default after 4 years).

It allows creators to let customers pay for new features and support, while at the same time 'derisking' vendor lock-in by automatically converting to an open source license.

[1] https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-adopting/

There is also the Fair Source License which has a short, readable license: https://fair.io

Another company using BSL that many here would be familiar with is Sentry.

I recently stumbled across a podcast where David Cramer, CTO of Sentry, talks about their move to BSL: https://changelog.com/podcast/371

I don't have a strong opinion on what's the "right" license for services like Sentry, but for me this was definitely worth a listen.

That is just "sell your software as closed source". Certainly that works, but not really related to the title.

> can still study and learn from the source code.

But will have to be careful not to use any of it and have no possibility of contributing improvements.

Many companies on this model welcome and maintain improvements. Some also extend that program to nonpaying customers, who may be more capable of contributing back than paying the standard license fee.

Source Available[0] is a model, and it's fine, but it's proprietary software, not Open Source. I really wish people would stop inventing new terms for this or pretending that it's still "open source"; there's nothing wrong with writing proprietary software, just don't pretend that you're doing something else.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

In this scenario, would a rollout of new features or upgrades be paid by the customer?

Do you have an example of this? If i was on the buying side, I would be wary of just buying source code. Most times writing from scratch is much easier than maintaining someone else's code

That model falls apart from the start. If anyone is savvy enough to compile from source then why buy it? If the code is free, then, I don't see how they'd even bother to pay for it; it being the compiled version; of course.

It the source is out they can't hardly enforce anything or much. People will just go to github and compile it for free.

> People will just go to github and compile it for free.

I think open-source-ux was talking about software where the customers would be companies, where there is comparatively less of an appetite for using pirated or unlicensed software.

"That model falls apart from the start"

Sure, there may be some individuals who will refuse to pay, but companies will not risk legal violations by not adhering to the licence conditions for the app.

In fact, the 'source-only' model is nothing new. Back in the late 1990s, developers used to sell UI and data components for Delphi with full source code. Even though code wasn't published to public code repositorities, there was nothing to stop individuals posting those components to the internet for others to grab without purchasing. Even so, developers were able to successfully sell their 'source-only' components to other developers and companies.

That's why have licenses that forbid certain usages. Obviously those are not 'Open Source' as defined by OSI. If you use such software in ways forbidden by the license, you are liable. Companies would usually be very careful, and would not knowingly ignore the license terms.

The people that are doing that wouldn't have bought it anyway. Most businesses that are legit will pay for what is required to be paid for to remain legal and not get sued.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com