6 ms·

I think these collectives would end up behaving much like the music industry in terms of chasing licence fees, suing orgs for infringement, and having too much

I think these collectives would end up behaving much like the music industry in terms of chasing licence fees, suing orgs for infringement, and having too much power on what cut was handed down to developers. Personally I would rather software be Free than have a unavoidable middle man taking a % cut.

rndhouse 5y ago
I'm working on developing a solution along the lines outlined in the article. But I think there's a way to decentralize the "FOSS collective". I've been working on OpenFare where payment plans are defined in code. Check it out here: https://github.com/openfare/openfare https://github.com/openfare/openfare
- commoner 5y ago
  While I appreciate that you've released a new source-available license to the public, the OpenFare License as described in the README is not free or open source. FOSS software can be sold, but if the software license requires the user to pay to continue using it, the software is not free because it does not unconditionally grant the user the freedom to run it: > The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#run-the-program https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#run-the-progr... That restriction also means the software is no longer open source, since it discriminates against commercial users who do not pay: > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Source-available licenses are a middle ground between proprietary and FOSS licenses, and they certainly serve a purpose. But, they're not FOSS licenses unless they allow the user to use, modify, and redistribute the software without exception.
  - rndhouse 5y ago
    I don't claim that this is a free or open source license. The OpenFare license is about monetizing software in the most convenient way possible. I agree with the open source definition as given here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      But if your license isn't open source, then what good is it for monetizing open source programs?
      - rndhouse 5y ago
        I think the entire point of the article is dual license FOSS and some other commercial license.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Of the root article, yes. But it doesn't sound like that's the intent of your license.
        rndhouse 5y ago
        You asked: > But if your license isn't open source, then what good is it for monetizing open source programs? The OpenFare License is the commercial license that I believe should be used in the dual licensing circumstance described in the article. Thereby helping to monetizing open source programs. The OpenFare License intends to provide that commercial aspect whilst being equivalent to the MIT License where possible.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Okay. I didn't expect that to be the case, but I'm happy to hear that it is.
  - 5y ago
- eeZah7Ux 5y ago
  No thanks. This approach violates the spirit of FLOSS by encouraging developers to focus on popularity rather than quality in order to make bank. It takes away the collective aspect and replaces it with extreme individualism. There's already a software model for that: closed source. Also, you posted the same URL many times. Please do not spam HN.
  - rndhouse 5y ago
    Sponsorship and donations are the popularity driven funding mechanisms. I want to fund the unpopular long tail of software maintainers (like the log4j guys who were not well known before the incident). I want to fund maintainers based on whether the software is *used* commercially or not. Not on whether it's popular or not. OpenFare doesn't lead to extreme individualism. It aims to fund collaborative software development. The OpenFare scheme is flexible enough to reflect how the collective wants to manage funding. The OpenFare is *equivalent* to the MIT License in non-commercial settings. It isn't even close to a closed source license.
- tpoacher 5y ago
  > The OpenFare License is a lot like the MIT License. The code can be modified, forked, reproduced, executed, and compiled without restriction by anyone. With two exceptions: > > Commercial users are subject to payment plans defined in code. > The license and payment plans can only be modified by the license copyright holder. I like this idea in principle! Of course, enforcing it is another question altogether, but ... a step in the right direction, nonetheless. Question, why does the payment plan appearing in the code rather than in the license make a difference? Assuming you're not allowed to distribute/modify etc without also including the license, does it matter where the payment plan is coded? Or am I missing the point here?
  - rndhouse 5y ago
    There are many advantages to defining the payment plan in code. Whether it's defined in the OPENFARE.lock file or the LICENSE file only matters for the sake of simplicity. The LICENSE needs to be the same across many packages so that it can be approved by lawyers once. The idea is to put (very narrow) customizations of the terms in the OPENFARE.lock file.
tpoacher 5y ago
One one hand, given human nature and evidence thus far, I would agree with your worry. On the other hand, the music thing is a mess partly because of ambiguity of what constitutes use (e.g. is a coffee shop video infringing because a piece of music was heard in the background?) I would hope that things are not as ambiguous with code libraries. They are either used or they are not. Having said that I can see shit hitting the fan with arguing over what constitutes a fork vs derivative work etc.
cycomanic 5y ago
What evidence do you have that these collectives would behave like the music industry? Generally the music industry does not go after the large companies, but instead after small individuals. In contrast the collectives would go after large corporations which profit in the billions from volunteer work without giving significantly back. In fact the argument that situation is that currently you're paying the middle man (those corporations) without the actual creators getting anything.
- anaganisk 5y ago
  Thats what Trademark, Copyright, DRM, WhatsApp ToS and all claim. “We want to protect creators/snail businesses ”, but they end up as tools to go after little guys.

rndhouse 5y ago

I'm working on developing a solution along the lines outlined in the article. But I think there's a way to decentralize the "FOSS collective". I've been working on OpenFare where payment plans are defined in code. Check it out here: https://github.com/openfare/openfare https://github.com/openfare/openfare

commoner 5y ago
While I appreciate that you've released a new source-available license to the public, the OpenFare License as described in the README is not free or open source. FOSS software can be sold, but if the software license requires the user to pay to continue using it, the software is not free because it does not unconditionally grant the user the freedom to run it: > The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#run-the-program https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#run-the-progr... That restriction also means the software is no longer open source, since it discriminates against commercial users who do not pay: > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Source-available licenses are a middle ground between proprietary and FOSS licenses, and they certainly serve a purpose. But, they're not FOSS licenses unless they allow the user to use, modify, and redistribute the software without exception.
- rndhouse 5y ago
  I don't claim that this is a free or open source license. The OpenFare license is about monetizing software in the most convenient way possible. I agree with the open source definition as given here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    But if your license isn't open source, then what good is it for monetizing open source programs?
    - rndhouse 5y ago
      I think the entire point of the article is dual license FOSS and some other commercial license.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Of the root article, yes. But it doesn't sound like that's the intent of your license.
        rndhouse 5y ago
        You asked: > But if your license isn't open source, then what good is it for monetizing open source programs? The OpenFare License is the commercial license that I believe should be used in the dual licensing circumstance described in the article. Thereby helping to monetizing open source programs. The OpenFare License intends to provide that commercial aspect whilst being equivalent to the MIT License where possible.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Okay. I didn't expect that to be the case, but I'm happy to hear that it is.
- 5y ago
eeZah7Ux 5y ago
No thanks. This approach violates the spirit of FLOSS by encouraging developers to focus on popularity rather than quality in order to make bank. It takes away the collective aspect and replaces it with extreme individualism. There's already a software model for that: closed source. Also, you posted the same URL many times. Please do not spam HN.
- rndhouse 5y ago
  Sponsorship and donations are the popularity driven funding mechanisms. I want to fund the unpopular long tail of software maintainers (like the log4j guys who were not well known before the incident). I want to fund maintainers based on whether the software is *used* commercially or not. Not on whether it's popular or not. OpenFare doesn't lead to extreme individualism. It aims to fund collaborative software development. The OpenFare scheme is flexible enough to reflect how the collective wants to manage funding. The OpenFare is *equivalent* to the MIT License in non-commercial settings. It isn't even close to a closed source license.
tpoacher 5y ago
> The OpenFare License is a lot like the MIT License. The code can be modified, forked, reproduced, executed, and compiled without restriction by anyone. With two exceptions: > > Commercial users are subject to payment plans defined in code. > The license and payment plans can only be modified by the license copyright holder. I like this idea in principle! Of course, enforcing it is another question altogether, but ... a step in the right direction, nonetheless. Question, why does the payment plan appearing in the code rather than in the license make a difference? Assuming you're not allowed to distribute/modify etc without also including the license, does it matter where the payment plan is coded? Or am I missing the point here?
- rndhouse 5y ago
  There are many advantages to defining the payment plan in code. Whether it's defined in the OPENFARE.lock file or the LICENSE file only matters for the sake of simplicity. The LICENSE needs to be the same across many packages so that it can be approved by lawyers once. The idea is to put (very narrow) customizations of the terms in the OPENFARE.lock file.

tpoacher 5y ago

One one hand, given human nature and evidence thus far, I would agree with your worry. On the other hand, the music thing is a mess partly because of ambiguity of what constitutes use (e.g. is a coffee shop video infringing because a piece of music was heard in the background?) I would hope that things are not as ambiguous with code libraries. They are either used or they are not. Having said that I can see shit hitting the fan with arguing over what constitutes a fork vs derivative work etc.

cycomanic 5y ago

What evidence do you have that these collectives would behave like the music industry? Generally the music industry does not go after the large companies, but instead after small individuals. In contrast the collectives would go after large corporations which profit in the billions from volunteer work without giving significantly back. In fact the argument that situation is that currently you're paying the middle man (those corporations) without the actual creators getting anything.

anaganisk 5y ago
Thats what Trademark, Copyright, DRM, WhatsApp ToS and all claim. “We want to protect creators/snail businesses ”, but they end up as tools to go after little guys.