Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by bombcar | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

bombcar·

Do you want the widest possible usage of it, including companies taking it and reselling it? Then MIT might work.

Do you want it to only be used and not sold? Probably AGPL or something.

Do you want to sell it also? Then AGPL with a separate commercial license for those who want to pay.

View on HN

I think the last one then.

I want to be able to sell it (exclusively), and anyone should be able to use the open-source version for free if they want (there is a SaaS offering for whoever wants it).

I don’t think that is “open source” then, more like you have a source-available freemium model? People can see the source code, and use it for free, but that’s all?

If someone makes their own changes can they distribute them? Can they charge money for them? Or is the idea that people can contribute code, but only back to you, which you can sell?

I’ll be curious to hear what you settle on.

The AGPL doesn't prevent competitors selling the software, complying with it is reasonably easy even for a SaaS company.

Then I think it's not what I want.

Its beginning to sound like you don't want an open source license, but a proprietary one instead.

I just want to make sure people can use it for free if they want but I don't want to give the right to sell.

A license that says that couldn't be classed as Open Source or Free Software, but maybe as Ethical Source.

https://ethicalsource.dev/principles/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com