>>>>> "Clark" == Clark C Evans <c...@clarkevans.com> writes:

>> Here is an example Business Source license...
Clark> Your proposal is an evaluation/crippled non-free license till a
Clark> particular 
Clark> date, where upon it is automatically "gifted" under the GPL-3-or-later.  
Clark> If this is the case, I wouldn’t bother with this complexity; I'd just
Clark> write
Clark> this on your website and be done with it.

>> A. Pre-Change Terms: License, before 01 January 2015
Clark>         (evaluation/crippleware non-free license)
>> B. Post-Change Terms: License after, and including, 01 January 2015:
Clark>         (GPL-v3-or-later)

It would not work to do this on the web site as the date is different
for each release (assuming you have a 1 year delay for each version of
the software).

Clark> I think this approach has an insurmountable practical adoption 
Clark> issue -- your work would never be in any free software distributions 
Clark> under the initial non-free license: if you're work is mediocre, it'll be 
Clark> ignored; while, if it's really good, it'll get free software
Clark> competitors.

The whole point in this discussion is that if there is no money to pay
for the salaries to developers there is no software.

In other words, it's as unlikely that there will be free software
competitors for this works as there is free software competitors for
any other software.

Whether we like it or not, most produced software nowadays is closed
source (especially from smaller companies). Just look at all the apps
at Android or Iphone. Only a fraction are open source.

We need to find a way to get money to pay full time developers, and in
the open source world the only resonable ways to do that (that I know
of) is dual licenses (that only works for infrastructure software) or
time delayed open source.

(Doing consulting or services on the side doesn't work; You can't make
enough money on this to have a big full time developer team).

Clark> In all of these scenarios you marginalize marketing value and 
Clark> potential collaboration.

I disagree.  It's true that with delayed open source you will not get
into all distributions, but you will get a much bigger user base than
by being closed source or open core.

Clark> This strategy might be modestly successful if the date is soon, and,
Clark> if it's clear that you won't move the goal post with subsequent versions
Clark> of the work.  That is, if you've developed the work in a public
Clark> repository

That is basicly what I am propsoing with Business source.

Clark> and, your next version is keeping the date promise as it approaches.

For each release the new date is X years from the release date.

Clark> However, I don't see how this solves your revenue concern.

The same way as closed source companies makes money.

The point here is to find a way to develop (eventually) open source
software but get similar revenue streams as closed source software.

License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to