One thing worth pointing out is that OSS needn't be free as in beer. I've paid for OSS SaaS products because I don't want to host and admin them myself, for example.
If your service provides something above and beyond what the source provides (and the OSS freedom), then you *may* still have a business. Maybe. On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 10:42 Alan Moore <kahunamo...@coopsource.org> wrote: > Fergal, > > *Warning* - Wall of text ahead! If you think OSS works perfectly fine the > way it is today feel free to press delete now... > > I've been holding back commenting on this thread to see where it would go. > It is nice to see everyone's take on the need for (or not) a solution to > the lack of an OSS "business model." From what I can tell, there really > isn't a business model in OSS at all. Almost by definition, the "market" > for OSS is a failed market. What other industry/market exists where the > price of goods is $0? > > Freedom issues aside, when you give away the fruits of your hard labor you > are doing just that, giving it away and that in no way constitutes a sale. > The Free Rider problem is alive and well, that is just human nature. I > would love to live in a world where this isn't true and I actively work > towards a future when we can all just work on whatever scratches our itch, > but so far we are not there yet. > > Of course, ancillary to the lack of a price/valuation for the code itself, > companies still make money by various other means given the environment > created by the OSS they give away. I doubt that Clojure or any other OSS > project has ever made any significant cash flow just giving away code. > Conferences, books, consulting services, freemium, value added Closed > Source/Dual License products and all the rest make up the difference > (hopefully!) Sometimes just the marketing visibility generated by giving > away code is enough to cover the costs of producing it. In that way, OSS > can be accounted for as a marketing "give away" from which other revenue > and "goodwill" will flow. This is obvious stuff we all know. > > To be perfectly honest, I am not a fan of the GPL or any other viral > license. I do not believe "code needs to be free". Code is code, an > inanimate artifact of human labor. Everyone is free to give theirs away - I > think this is admirable and altruistic behavior that we need more of. I'm > very grateful that Rich and all the rest of the Clojure developers, > contributors, library authors, etc. are giving their time, effort and focus > to make this community what it is, awesome! A very big shout out to all of > you. > > Clearly there is a spectrum of software that runs the gamut from operating > systems, languages, databases, tools and other "utility" code, up through > more targeted platforms such as SAS, CRM, SalesForce type systems. Another > example class of software might target an industry such as Construction > Project Management systems or even custom software written in-house or by a > consultancy for a specific customer (that could, in theory, be refactored > and sold to another customer), software written for a specific piece of > hardware (my day job) and finally software written by the NSA, which has no > market value whatsoever. As the utility for a wider audience decreases so > too does the potential market, which in turn affects how licensing terms > are chosen for any given project. > > Each of these classes of software seems to have different requirements for > licensing terms. Typically, OSS projects tend to fall under the "utility" > class and has the widest audience, almost by necessity/definition, and > seems to do best with very lenient license terms. All of these classes of > software overlap to some degree in their needs for things like developer > mind share or the availability of engineers to work on a project, > technology or code base. > > Layered on top of the pragmatic concerns listed above are the larger moral > (e.g. freedom) and societal (IP/patents, OccupyStartups?) factors that > influence the choice of licensing terms for a code base. Clearly the GPL > and other Open Source licenses are very opinionated in their terms. > > In reviewing your license terms, I don't know what class of software your > license is intended to target. Your approach may have a fatal flaw in that > the time it takes to bootstrap is highly variable and having a fixed > deadline might fit some projects/markets but not others. > > In my thirty years of working in the Silicon Valley for many different > startups we were almost always too early into the market. This left us > running out of money and scrambling to find other sources of revenue > (pivoting in modern parlance) and inevitably shuttering the business or > being bought out for very small fractions of the potential value. We built > a Tivo-like system before there was a Tivo, we did ads and coupons on gas > pumps, ATMs and grocery checkout terminals long before there was Groupon, > we built teleradiology systems before telemedicine became a thing, etc. > etc. I once filed a trademark application that described/covered the > features provided by GitHub, LinkedIn, Atlassian, Asana, Slack, AngelList > and Kickstarter -- predating all of them by ten years or more. If only I > had help getting going in those early days... sigh. > > Another problem I see is this, why would I work hard to bootstrap a > project, to prove it has economic viability only to have someone else come > along, fork my code base and compete with me? It seems that the time-bomb > terms will filter out certain classes of software from using the license. > > At the risk of being redundant, I will once again mention the Co-op Source > License. This license has been under development for a number of years now > and attempts to solve the Free Rider problem in OSS. As with your license, > the basic premise is to strike a balance between OSS licensing terms and > traditional closed source licenses. > > It does this by having the code owned by all the members of the > cooperative (often an LLC for the purpose of fitting into existing legal > frameworks.) Members of the cooperative share the code as well as the > rights and responsibilities that come along with building a commercially > viable project. Projects are organized in a democratic fashion w.r.t. > general goals, direction, large decisions, etc. but are run day-to-day like > many OSS projects are by a core group of maintainers with the "lead" role > being rotated on a release by release basis. > > Individual projects are expected to be "federated" into a larger whole (a > not-for-profit corporation) so that the result looks a lot like the Valve > corporation is organized - a very flat organization with lots of autonomy > for individual projects and members with a common support structure that > helps with common services for the members/projects. This organization > would provide funding mechanisms (via membership fees, direct investment > and/or crowdfunding) as well as legal, marketing, sales and other services > for the member projects, either directly or contracted to outside firms. > > By incorporating the seven cooperative principles into our software > license and membership agreements, we enjoy the benefits of being a > cooperative: cooperatives are one of the most stable forms of enterprise, > often surviving two, four or even ten times longer a typical commercial > enterprise. > > It is interesting that someone brought up the subject of Credit Unions vs > Big Banks. Guess what, Credit Unions are cooperatives! I see this approach > providing an alternative to large tech companies like Oracle, Google, > Facebook and or VC backed startups. Cooperatives distribute a majority of > profits back to the members in accordance with their contributions. > Utilizing direct democracy allows each member to have the same power over > the direction of the project(s) and the community as a whole. > > I suppose our visions are divergent in many respects but I do wholly > support your goal of finding a viable commercial alternative to the typical > OSS license. The Co-op Source License is not viral but it is inclusive, > fair, transparent and pragmatic. And of course, source code is *always* > included. :-) > > I have been thinking and working on these topics for an embarrassingly > long time. Most of that time has been waiting for the limitations of > commercializing OSS to become apparent over the OSS hubris of the last > decade or so. I think developers are finally realizing that using an > alternative licensing scheme is both a valuable, sustainable and worthwhile > endeavour. > > Again, sorry for the wall of text... some things just take a bit of > explaining. > > Take care. > > Alan > > P.S. I too am an old-school C++ dev :-) > > On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 3:17:43 AM UTC-7, Fergal Byrne wrote: > >> >> An old-school C++ dev and I have started an initiative to combine the >> best of Open Source with a limited commercial license. It's not a new idea >> - MySQL creator Monty Widenius thought of something less viral in 2013 [1]. >> >> The Time-Bombed Open License [2] is the commercial side of a >> dual-licensed project, best paired with something strongly viral like GPL. >> Essentially, the project owner has 2 (up to 4) years to commercialise their >> product and then must go fully Open Source. The license is viral, so any >> commercial licensees must also use the TBOL and eventually open up their >> derived products. >> >> One major idea is to foster a culture of disruption of exploitative >> industries. If you can develop software to disrupt in your local market, >> your innovation can be used similarly by others elsewhere, and each new >> startup can improve on your work while earning their keep. Eventually, all >> derived products become Open Source and are free to all. >> >> We'd appreciate any comments, feedback and assistance from the wonderful >> Clojure community - we're up on twitter at @OccupyStartups. >> >> Regards, >> >> Fergal Byrne >> >> p.s. I wonder if this might be a solution to the clamour for Datomic to >> be Open Sourced (cough)? >> > [1] >> http://monty-says.blogspot.ie/2013/06/business-source-software-license-with.html >> [2] http://occupystartups.me >> >> -- >> > >> Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT >> >> http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology >> http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne >> >> Founder of Clortex: HTM in Clojure - >> https://github.com/nupic-community/clortex >> >> Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC >> Read for free or buy the book at https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines >> >> e:fergalby...@gmail.com t:+353 83 4214179 >> > Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org >> > Formerly of Adnet edi...@adnet.ie http://www.adnet.ie >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
