Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctxc | Hacker News Reader

Source available but with a pricing for commercial use seems to be the most sustainable way for open source (pun intended) though.

View on HN

You can (and most likely should) still use a OSI-approved license if you want, such as AGPL/GPLv3, while providing the possibility of case-to-case commercial licenses.

gifski [0] for example is a successful open-source project doing that.

[0] https://gif.ski/license.html

I just see now, there are two Gifskis, one Rust, one Swift. It's worth looking at the maintainer of the Swift one, he has 1000+ repos, many with 1000+ stars.

* https://github.com/ImageOptim/gifski

* https://github.com/sindresorhus/Gifski

* https://github.com/sindresorhus

He appears to be the original creator of the “Awesome X” repo: https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome

Both gifski are maintained by @sindresorhus, as you can see by commit counts. (Even if he’s not the main maintainer of the swift version).

But that gets in the way of open source as free labor for giant companies.

I feel like the license used on Llama covers that, right? Carve out an exclusion for large companies so they have to obtain a commercial license and let all the ones below that access it for free.

> Carve out an exclusion for large companies so they have to obtain a commercial license

And this is why open source means source available, look at the license. There are infinite variations between free software and classic source available.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com