There has been a lot of talk about companies and individuals adopting licenses that aren’t OSI opensource to protect themselves from mega-corp leechers. Developers have also been condemned who put donation notices in the command-line or during package installation. Projects with opensource cores and paid extensions have also been targets of vitriol.

So, let’s say we wanted to make it possible for the majority of developers to work on software that strictly follows the definition of opensource, which models would be acceptable to make enough money to work on those projects full-time?

  • Deckweiss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Personally I like the following two approaches:

    1. Free and open source for selfhosting, paid when hosted by the company (e.g Nextcloud, gitea, cal.com)

    2. Free and open source with basic features, paid for proprietary business addons (e.g Portmaster, Xpipe)


    I think those approaches are fully compatible with the open source definition, but please correct me if I am wrong. (The examples I mentioned are just some of which I personally know and use, but of course they are many others)

      • NoneYa@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Also cost for commercial use, free for personal use.

        I like this because it allows me a chance to test the full version at my job and then we purchase the full version when we’re sure we want it.

          • NoneYa@lemm.ee
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            One recent example I can give you is XnView. It’s a program that is free for personal use as an alternative to some specific Photoshop suite as well as some other paid photo viewers like ACDSee. But if you’re going to use this for any sort of commercial use, you need to pay for licenses for all computers you use this on. Such was the case for us since we needed it where I work.

            Admittedly it’s integrity based for most of these programs. They are hoping that you are going to be honest about your usage and pay when you use it for commercial use. There doesn’t appear to be telemetry that reports back your usage as this is usually just some guy releasing his personal project. In the case of XnView, I feel it was a guy who was fed up with more recent updates to ACDSee and made his own that mirrors the older versions and just works.

            We bought the licenses but I never really felt they were necessary to activate. But we had the proof if we were ever audited that we paid for commercial usage.

            I pirate some stuff in my personal life, but these little guys who do this are seriously awesome and I try my hardest to follow their rules since it’s so convenient and helpful in my search and their approach is not ever privacy intrusive.

            Another example would be WinRAR, if I remember correctly. They expect businesses to pay to use it but the general public of users just using it at home get the free, infinite “trial”.

            • onlinepersona@programming.devOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Both of those aren’t opensource (at least I can’t find their repos on their webpages), but I see the model your proposing. Maybe just providing an option to pay at all, and not make it a donation, could work. The only problem I see is a competitor swooping in with a bigger team (or a team in the first place), and building upon the existing project to kill it in order to end up selling its own product. With non-restrictive opensource licenses like MIT and Apache, I assume it would be trivial. GPLv3 would make that a little harder.

              Anti Commercial-AI license

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Proxmox does this.

        Syncthing has vendor support - they use ST in integrations.

        Both seem like effective models

    • onlinepersona@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Free and open source for selfhosting, paid when hosted by the company (e.g Nextcloud, gitea, cal.com)

      Do you believe anything should be done if a large competitor takes over the business of hosting for other companies and hosting is the major revenue stream of the opensource project?

      Free and open source with basic features, paid for proprietary business addons (e.g Portmaster, Xpipe)

      That sounds like Open Core and I am for this, but there seems to be a dissatisfaction within the loud part of the opensource community regarding it. They don’t consider it “open-source”. Do you still count it as opensource?


      Your proposals concern services or applications. Do you have any thoughts on opensource that isn’t that e.g libraries, frameworks, protocols, and so on?

      Anti Commercial-AI license