Comment by theosp

Comment by theosp 2 months ago

26 replies

View on Hacker News

At JustDo we make our source code available for transparency and collaboration, we use a source-available license that ensures fair compensation for our work. This model allows us to maintain the benefits of open development while avoiding the pitfalls of unrestricted open-source licensing, ensuring we can sustainably develop and support our software.

I developed this license https://justdo.com/source-available-license , if someone wants to adopt it for their project, I'd love to provide its Latex form, just DM me. (With enough demand, I might Open Source the Source available license ;) )."

orlandohill 2 months ago

Could you use a PolyForm license instead? They have a set of standardized, source-available licenses that are much shorter and easier to understand.

"The PolyForm Project is a group of experienced licensing lawyers and technologists developing simple, standardized, plain-language software source code licenses. PolyForm aims to fill gaps in the menu of standardized software licenses, like non-commercial, trial, and small-business-only terms."

https://polyformproject.org/

Reply View 1 reply
  • theosp 2 months ago

    Interesting, I wasn't aware of this project.

    Reply View 0 replies
ignoramous 2 months ago

> allows us to maintain the benefits of open development while avoiding the pitfalls of unrestricted open-source licensing, ensuring we can sustainably develop and support

"allow us", "ensuring we can" ...

You misunderstand OSS, which is about "allow all", and "ensuring all of us can". Of course, the OSS model doesn't always work, nor do its proponents claim it is the one true way to run a project. Though, they do get irked when source-available licenses try to pass off as "almost OSS" but aren't quite.

Reply View 14 replies
  • auggierose 2 months ago

    I wouldn't care too much about what some dudes who don't pay for my software get irked by.

    The gp clearly distinguishes open-source and source-available, and I don't think he misunderstands OSS.

    Reply View 12 replies
    • ignoramous 2 months ago

      > I don't think he misunderstands OSS

      Perhaps misunderstands source-available:

      "At JustDo we make our source code available for transparency and collaboration"

      Reply View 11 replies
      • kelnos 2 months ago

        How so? That's literally the point of source-available licenses: a company using the code can audit it and sometimes, depending on the license fix issues for their own use.

        I wouldn't be interested in collaborating with a company on their source-available software (since I'd be doing free work for their profit), but if my company were using their product, and we needed a new feature or bug fix that they weren't going to prioritize, I'd much prefer to build that feature or fix that bug myself and give it back to the company than have to maintain my own fork.

        And I don't really see a problem with that. Presumably my company would be using their software because building the whole thing ourselves would be too costly. But if I need to spend a week or two augmenting it? That's fine. Cheaper for my company, and I'm getting paid to do that work.

        Reply View 3 replies
      • auggierose 2 months ago

        I don't see any misunderstanding there. Maybe you misunderstand the basic meaning of words?

        Transparency: If I can see the source code, that is certainly pretty much the definition of transparency.

        Collaboration: It is easier to collaborate if I can see the source, don't you think? That doesn't define the legal terms under which this collaboration happens, of course, and you should make sure they suit you before you collaborate.

        Reply View 6 replies
  • kelnos 2 months ago

    GP didn't claim their software was OSS.

    I personally wouldn't use something available under a non-OSS source-available type license, but if they're able to build a business around it and are doing well, that's great.

    Reply View 0 replies
OutOfHere 2 months ago

This is a disease. It is not open source. No one who values open source will use it. For any task, for software that would run on my system, I would rather use open source even if it's five times worse.

Reply View 3 replies
  • llm_trw 2 months ago

    No one is asking you to.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • OutOfHere 2 months ago

      Correct, but I am asking people to not use it because the whole software chain would erode and fall apart if too many people started using such non open-source licenses. Moreover, open source safeguards adoption of the software.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • llm_trw 2 months ago

        How does the MIT license do any of those things?

        Reply View 0 replies
jpt4 2 months ago

Have violations of this license been successfully countered?

Reply View 0 replies
llm_trw 2 months ago

Yeah, source available is the way to go.

I'm not here to make Bezos' yacht ten feet longer.

Reply View 2 replies
  • mrob 2 months ago

    What's wrong with AGPL?

    Reply View 1 reply
    • llm_trw 2 months ago

      monkey paw curls Your AGPL code now only runs on amazon lambda functions.

      Stallman et. al. have not worked in big corp since the 80s so they don't understand how misaligned incentives are now. The AGPL is a solution to the issues we were having in the 00s. The issues of the 20s are solved by source available licenses. Or my preferred solution, any open source license which can only be used by a natural person, corporations need not apply.

      Reply View 0 replies