Comment by mwcampbell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwcampbell | Hacker News Reader

How about dual licensing of the core software itself? That is, release the source under a copyleft license, and sell licenses to companies who won't accept the copyleft terms. For libraries and tools targeted at software developers, I think the Parity Public License [1] is a particularly good choice.

Taking it further, we should be willing to challenge the strict parameters of the Open Source Definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, etc. These aren't sacred texts, and for many applications, it doesn't matter if they can never be packaged in the main section of Debian or other distros that hold tightly to these rules. In particular, for applications that aren't targeted at software developers, releasing the source under a license that allows non-commercial use, then selling commercial licenses, is a completely sensible approach. For example, check out the Prosperity License [2]. Edit: To be clear, licenses like this one shouldn't be called open source; a common term is "source available".

[1]: https://paritylicense.com/

[2]: https://prosperitylicense.com/

Anecdotally I don’t believe dual licensing is viable for smaller projects. There simply aren’t enough companies that care about your license to make it a reliable business model.

This is something I explored initially for Oban[0] and I interviewed a few successful OSS product owners. They attributed zero sales to licensing. All sales were driven by features that a business needed once they had already invested in the core project.

[0] https://getoban.pro

We shall not challenge the OSI and FSF definitions, because every principle that they defend is not only worth protecting, but under attack by bad interests. "Challenging" these is how you end up being gaslit by companies which are abusing the open source brand to peddle software that isn't. And such muddying of the waters makes it easier for companies to disregard the terms of copyleft licenses. This is non-negotiable: non-commercial licenses ARE NOT OPEN SOURCE, and people who argue for this are actively causing harm to open source. I expected better from you, Matt.

However - by no means am I suggesting that non-commercial licenses or licenses which don't meet the other OSI or FSF criteria are wrong, or cannot be used to do good - nothing of the sort. But you need to give it another name. Some projects are using "Fair Source", for example.

OK, the Prosperity license and others like it shouldn't be called open source. I should have been explicit about that, as I believe Kyle Mitchell (author of the two licenses I linked) is.

I for one don't think that every principle they defend is worth protecting, nor I do fully agree with their definition. I'm not trying to convince you, just to say that some people have a different opinion.

How so? Can you elaborate?

You make a perfectly circular argument. We shouldn't call things the OSI mailing list doesn't like this year "open source" because companies will call things the OSI mailing list doesn't like this year "open source". In other words, "open source" is valuable because it's OSI's exclusive intellectual property. Its utility lies in exclusion and control.

If you want to retreat to "principles", that's fine. But then you'll have to deal with how poorly OSI and FSF definitions express them, differences of opinion among members hidden behind handwavy vague definitions, and a long history of inconsistent results on specific licenses.

I have no idea how any of this makes it easier for companies to disregard copyleft terms. Diffusion of copyright ownership and constant initiatives to discourage enforcement, by giving up rights and including by vilifying those enforce theirs, make it easy for companies to disregard copyleft.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com