Thoughts on an "Open Source Code / Enterprise Use Fee" License for Indy Developers...
erwin opened this issue · comments
I was looking over the "open source licenses" that github links to and every one of them issues exactly the same terms for individuals, small mom & pop businesses, and Fortune 500 Companies...
https://choosealicense.com/appendix/
I've been part of the Open Source community for decades, and freeloading by those with the most resources only accelerates.
Personally, I think there needs to be a new Open Source Code/Enterprise Fee license that explicitly requires very wealthy organizations to PAY when they USE Open Source Code software... I don't want to see independent Open Source developers struggling financially while JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Citicorp use their code for without paying a cent.
In my opinion, this should be the default Open Source Code License for code from independent developers and small businesses.
For now, I think every developer should simply make their code available with an "All Rights Registered" copyright, until have a solid Open Source agreement that reliably extracts USE FEES from the JP Morgan's of the world...
I used to use DBAD when I felt this way. Eventually, I got enough corporate users that complained so I made my stuff MIT. I also suggest they provide pull requests when there are issues.
I didn't know about that one.
Definitely looks like the Don't be a Dick License is a good average starting point.
Personally, I think the right Open Source licenses is 100% clear that corporations use this in production, they buy a license.
For individuals, Open Source.
And written clearly enough that if you catch a big corporation infringing, lawyers will line up to take the case on contingency.
Yea a GPLv2 for individuals/community and a proprietary for commercial
dual license exists, but it's a pain for regular people to do anything / enforce
@Ae3NerdGod nobody in here is marak
whoa calm down, dweeb. Make your own thread
1 reply per post buddy, keep your cool.
post is from forum threads, from ~25 years ago (which is what this is). Nothing to do with twitter. Are you sure you're old enough to be allowed on the internet?
You have to be 13 or older to post on github issue threads. Sorry.
Smh. Mindless digression.
Can't expect much else from someone with "nerdgod" in their name, especially when they like their own random flame post in a thread that has nothing to do with it lmao.
via this thread #305 I think he's actually mentally handicapped so should be nicer to him.
"sad troll is sad" is you talking in 3rd person?
Certainly some synapse misfire in his brain.
There are lots of us out here who believe restricting a company's use of your software is incompatible with the idea of free software.
In brief, Richard Stallman is a radical communist. His ideas were always a bit fringe in the FOSS community. That's why the GPLv3 introduction was so contentious. No one seems to understand the history of free software.
Before software licensing was a thing, coders were programmers who wrote code, not software developers who developed a product. They supported the endeavors of their employers, mostly. Code libraries were their toolbox. And they had no problem sharing their tools, just like a house builder would have little qualms about sharing a fancy hammer.
The introduction of software licensing meant professionals could no longer share their tools. This is the ecosystem in which the free software movement grew. The whole point of free software was to share with Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, and anyone employing professionals. The MIT license best matches the original purpose of FOSS.
If you want to publish a product, STOP USING FOSS LICENSES!
If you want to contribute to the craft, then continue on as usual. Nothing has changed. FUD is strong. Cloud computing is time-shares all over again. Everything old is new, and the greenhorns think they are coming up with original thoughts, when they're just failing to learn from their elders.
coders were programmers who wrote code, not software developers who developed a product. They supported the endeavors of their employers, mostly. Code libraries were their toolbox. And they had no problem sharing their tools, just like a house builder would have little qualms about sharing a fancy hammer
At that time, outside of the FSF few independent open-source developers. Sure the people at Berkeley are happy to share with the people at HP and IBM, as everyone was already on the payroll somewhere, so it didn't matter much. Just as you pointed out, sharing tools they made while doing a job.
But what happens when you want to quit doing the old job job, and just focus on improving the open source tool that a lot of people are getting value from already?
Or maybe your an indie developer in the wonderful gig economy that built something everyone uses, and yet for some reason you don't qualify for top jobs, even though a huge number of people using your code objectively proves that you do.
If you want to publish a product, STOP USING FOSS LICENSES!
Even from the very beginning of the Free/Open Source software movement, there has never been 1 universally agreed upon definition of what is "Free Software". That's why we have multiple licenses.
Yet every one of the common "Open Source" Licenses has the exact same terms for "Commercial Use" and "Private Use".
Meanwhile, obviously for some people, the differentiation between "Commercial Use" and "Private Use" does matter a lot, or else they wouldn't even be listed separately.
Sure you can say OSS exactly means must JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup must get to use it for free.
I don't think so though. I think we need a type of "Open Source Code" license that provides benefits to individuals, yet ensures when these massively wealthy pools of resources are getting value from "Open Source Code" MUST PAY a fee.
- I don't think donations work, because when a pool of money
thinksit has a choice to pay, the self evident choice isno. - I don't think
paid supportworks, because the transaction cost is very high, and it just doesn't make sense outside of the highest profile top 0.001% projects.
Yet I think we can find a way to make some form of Open Source Code and yet Enterprise USE FEE as the default for Independent Open Source projects.
But what happens when you want to quit doing the old job job, and just focus on improving the open source tool that a lot of people are getting value from already?
you run dual licenses normally.
I think the best example is tightvnc, they've been doing it 20 years successfully. Nearly every page mentions it:
https://www.tightvnc.com/download.php
There are two licensing options available for TightVNC software:
GNU General Public License version 2 (often abbreviated as GNU GPL). This is the default licensing option. It's completely free but it does not allow integration with closed-source products. Read the complete text of the license here (opens in a new window).
Commercial source code license. Unlike GPL, it allows integrating the software into proprietary products, although it's not free. Read more about commercial licensing.
https://www.tightvnc.com/licensing-tvnserver.php
If It's Free, Why Purchase a License?
Let's consider you would like to have TightVNC functionality in your own software. For example, you plan to add desktop sharing to your conference system. If your project is not free software, you are not allowed to sell TightVNC as a part of your closed-source system. The GPL simply does not permit that.
This is where we can help you by providing a commercial license to our source code.
you run dual licenses normally.
I think the best example is tightvnc, they've been doing it 20 years successfully
I think Dual Licensing may be part of the solution...
Yet in the case of colors.js, would that really have fixed Marak's cash flow problem?
My point is that we need a "Open Source Code" license that requires the Goldman Sachs of the world to pay for USE. I think getting the minuscule percentage of other usually other smaller companies to pay a re-licensing fee is leaving a huge percentage of the MONEY sitting on the table, and further subsidizing the Goldman's of the world that least deserve to be subsidized by independent developers.
Yea I agree, I've seen several banks using dropzone.js or whatever it's called for their "secure uploads" and not allowing email.. (so literally just relying on browser ssl, any uploader is fine)
doubt they paid anything there too
would that really have fixed Marak's cash flow problem?
assuming this is Marak, I don't think there was any helping him
https://twitter.com/marak/status/1320465599319990272
https://nypost.com/2020/09/16/resident-of-nyc-home-with-suspected-bomb-making-materials-charged/
assuming this is Marak, I don't think there was any helping him
Wow... If it's the same Marak, looks like you're right... From the article... Literally crazy stuff...
“It could have blown up the entire building,” he said. “Luckily that didn’t happen.”
“This is like the making of the Unibomber,” he added. “He is the unibomber apprentice.”
yea or it's some insane coincidence... That article says his first and last name and tons of other sites have his first & last name linking to his github/twitter so.. unless it's some guy with the same first & last name as him.. whom had an apartment catch fire in the same month lmao
Here's the thing... if you don't want your software being used by [insert here], simply do not enter the OSS sphere. Develop, market, then try to sell your software/code/etc. It's that simple.
Open Source is, by its very nature, open to all; not open to some, closed to others. I don't care what your position is on the matter, demanding a 6 figure salary for a library that 43 other people contributed to, and one you haven't really touched yourself in years, is ridiculous. Sabotaging the contributions of all those other developers in some sort of 5-year-old level temper tantrum is downright stupid.
One thing is for certain at this stage... No one in their right mind is ever going to hire this guy in the future as his actions have proven he cannot be trusted.
So, good job mate. You didn't just shoot yourself in the foot, you blew it clean off.
Once again, no one is defending Marak specifically, what is being defended is the idea that despite what has happened we as human beings must treat each other with respect. This is what differentiates dark age courts from what we should be striving for in modern society.
Even when someone does something bad, it does not give us the right to publicly shame or attack them. When that happens, as we have seen in these threads people will start attacking each other as well. We must be civil even to those who have done bad things because otherwise we then start to be uncivil with those around us whom we may not agree with even though they have done nothing wrong, or there may have been a miscommunication.
This is the nature of trying our best to be good people and lending a helping hand to those around us so that we can all move forward in the best possible way. It may not be palatable all the time, but if we each do our part when we can, to encourage others to treat each other with respect and dignity, it will result in a better outcome for everyone involved.
Despite all that has happened here, and as much as I would have preferred it did not happen, I can't help but be thankful for the opportunity it is providing for people to look inside of themselves and decide; Do I want to be a part of the problem or the solution, and further, what type of solution do I want to see. From there we can see at our innermost level how we view the world. That is a choice. If we don't like how we view the world, we can choose to change it.
I believe this is the definition of the word compassion. We should have it even for those that do bad things or maliciously break code. Without compassion, especially in a public environment, we will set poor examples for others encouraging them to think it is OK to abuse bad people. In fact... it is not ok to abuse any people, be they good or bad. Marak did something wrong, there are ramifications that come with that, and he will inevitably have to deal with those ramifications, whatever they may be. But it is not an acceptable thing for us to abuse Marak or each other because of what Marak has done.
This is really the core of the issue here. Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone has done something wrong it should be dealt with, and it should be dealt with humanely. Even if it is hard to do so. This is what a civil society does.
@bobmartins79 that is uncalled for and an example of how not to have a decent conversation.
https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-community-forum-code-of-conduct
Anyone reading this, it seems like I am talking to myself in the chain, however, the individuals, and their posts that were creating an abusive and toxic community have been dealt with. Apologies for any inconvenience and props to @github for helping promote a healthy and encouraging community where we can all code in the true spirit of free and open-source collaboration!