I like the approach and it seems to be definitely better for everyone, but how you monetize a library?
The Indian state of Kerala is the most advanced, well run, and successful region of the country. On development indexes it ranks with the poorer regions of the EU. It's also largely a communist state, but once again the communists are democrats.
Of course, the site was made by a vc, so maybe it really is Monetize Everything News.
At some point, I wonder if our social and economic system becomes a close enough proxy to darwinistic survival of the fittest through capital ownership that a large enough portion of the population realize they would do better outside this construct rather than inside our societies and will begin to reject the system at large.
Right now we are able to provide stable food, housing, and ERs can't refuse people for medical care but stable housing is in the downturn and Healthcare costs that lead to bankruptcy conditions are on the rise. I feel like we're really testing how low many will go before they reject the system at hand and at what point is that number of people large enough to be critical to the existing system's stability.
At some point the effort for comfortable success may become so high people just abandon it entirely.
We have voluntarily destroyed lots of economic growth and plunged millions into extreme poverty because of a virus that is not especially bad when compared to historical pandemics.
but how you monetize a library?
I worked hard on it and now I don't know how to license it.
I'm okay with non-profit OSS projects to use it freely, but I need others to pay for it. How ? How do you express such a dual license ? And how do you ensure for-profit users reward you ?
That's not the part I prefer in this project...
GPLv3 with a commercial exception
It's easier to draft a separate license agreement if you're the sole copyright holder.
If you're not the sole rights holder, if your project contains other GPL code, you'll need permission from the authors to license under terms other than the GPL. That would include patches from other authors, unless they sign the rights over to you.
Plenty of companies will use GPL code, especially for hosted software.
It's easier if other people can make money with it.
I worked at 2 different companies and they both quite heavily depended on RogueWave STL.
For a real-life example of it, see this blatant bait and switch fuckery: https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/26489
I was not thinking of Actionscript when I wrote this comment.
It basically allows you to share your code to others in exchange for a fee. If someone builds an app or service that uses your library, and it is paid within Fluence, you will receive a fee. This works transitively.
Engineers in tech always complain that there is no proof of good work, like someone in biochemistry with a stack of papers on their CV would have. Well, this is how you do it. You spend effort sharing ideas with the community knowing you won't necessarily make a dime off of them, just like the biochem person who doesn't get paid per paper, and not spend 100% of your personal efforts working for someone else in private on a for profit project you aren't at liberty to intimately discuss.
CKEditor has multiple commercial licensing plans: https://ckeditor.com/pricing/
Services, in this article, doesn't refer to things that can only be built as services (e.g. because it queries a proprietary dataset) but those that might optionally be built as services (e.g. fetching and processing otherwise accessible data) and could, as easily, be built as a library.
Basically where most devs selling commercial software live on.
Copyright infringement is very rarely a crime.