Hacker News Reader

Comment by pytrin | Hacker News Reader

I didn't redefine anything. You are welcome to read about [1] Commercial Open Source. You talk as though the availability of the source-code has no value.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_open-source_applicat...

View on HN

The only relevant thing in that link is dual-licensed software. But looking at binpress it seems like much of the software there is only available under a proprietary license. The license generator can easily be configured to generate a proprietary license.

I didn't say that source code has no value, but providing source is not the same as an open source license, which has significantly more value.

Our "developer" license is very similar to a free open-source license in the liberties it provides, except for a non-compete clause which says you can't redistribute "as-is" (you can, however, as part of a larger / modified work). This is a big concern for a lot of people working on commercial products - if adding this clause gets them over the hump to release their code - we think there's tremendous value in that.

On the other hand, almost all of our licenses include an SLA - which no free open-source license does. In fact, one of the main reasons often cited by people releasing code with FOSS licenses is that they don't have to support it (doesn't mean they won't, they just don't have to). We think the guarantee of support is worth a lot in certain sectors (such as SMBs and enterprise).

The license generator is a fantastic resource! And so far as I can tell one can use it however they like (they need not sign up with binpress to use them). I'd much prefer to offer software under the GPL, but also offer a proprietary license for sale for those who cannot release their source code and are happy to pay for the privilege.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com