Open Source

34730 readers

728 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Open source maintenance fee (opensourcemaintenancefee.org)

submitted 7 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I saw this some time ago and wasn't really sure how to feel about it. On one hand it's good to make corporations compensate maintainers, but I also don't want to be forced to ask for a fee because my project uses another project that uses this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

This is the text is suggested to be added

## Open Source Maintenance Fee

This project requires an [Open Source Maintenance
Fee](https://opensourcemaintenancefee.org). While the source code is
freely available under the terms of the LICENSE, all other aspects of
the project--including opening or commenting on issues, participating in
discussions and downloading releases--require [adherence to the
Maintenance Fee](./OSMFEULA.txt).

In short, if you use this project to generate revenue, the [Maintenance
Fee is required](./OSMFEULA.txt).

To pay the Maintenance Fee, [become a Sponsor](https://github.com/sponsors/<YOURORGNAME>).

The EULA template can be found here. This is the part I find important

Conflicts with OSI License

To the extent any term of this Agreement conflicts with User's rights under the OSI License regarding the Software, the OSI License shall govern. This Agreement applies only to the Binary Release and does not limit User's ability to access, modify, or distribute the Software's source code or self-compiled binaries. User may independently compile binaries from the Software's source code without this Agreement, subject to OSI License terms. User may redistribute the Binary Release received under this Agreement, provided such redistribution complies with the OSI License (e.g., including copyright and permission notices). This Agreement imposes no additional restrictions on such rights.

I think it's a good attempt, but I'm not sure how it can be enforced. It would also need to be applicable to different jurisdictions. The project maintainer would have to know that somebody requesting a feature, commenting or participating in discussions is doing so in the name of the company 🤔

Thank you for sharing this. It's food for thought.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

This is essentially what Mozilla is doing but providing a legal framework for all open source projects.

As an open source developer, my initial reaction is that this isn't good. You're just shifting the problem. Your code remains open source so if you have a python or JavaScript library that doesn't require compiling, you can't use this.

Not only that, but FOSS requires you to provide build instructions for your binaries. Someone can clone your repository and run it through CI/CD and have a binary.

I'm willing to be proven wrong here.

I've seen only one method work well: strong copyleft FOSS licenses like AGPL that essentially make it impossible for a company like Amazon from profiting off your code without a separate agreement.

You could add a non-commercial clause to your open source license. I can't find the one that I used to use back in the day but essentially the goal is to augment whatever license you use by attaching a preamble that dictates how the software can be used.

Attaching that clause does push the software out of FOSS and into source available since you are restricting who can use the software, which is why I stopped using it.

Edit: found the clause I used to use back in the day. I don't personally recommend it over more copy left licenses.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

Dual licensure is the obvious solution. Have a strong copyleft license as default (Sorry MIT!) and then have a non-transferrable commercial license for proprietary businesses.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago

It appears to be an attempt to monetize open source software, something which should in my opinion be applauded, given the trillions of dollars made off the backs of software developers who contributed to OSS without ever getting compensation, something that's required to have a roof over your head and food to eat.

Another approach being attempted in this space is by Bruce Perens (of Open Source fame).

He's calling his efforts Post Open: https://postopen.org/

Disclaimer: I contributed to the community conduct document.