This is the key portion. The open source project was turned into a commercial source available library with a license key.

I am glad this has worked well for the developer who now has a decent income for all the hard work put into this library.

More seriously:

- you get support by paying, this is important for many businesses - $1k/year is cheap

- risk of getting sued if the word gets out you're using something against its license (and for network-facing code, I'd suspect it's easy enough to miss something)

For me the advantage of source-available is you can always shortcut the support if there's a business critical problem and you can't wait for the author to wake up, so I think it's a great model.

TBH, I wouldn't dare to use such a model in the B2C market, though. Everyone would pirate it.

it is also why people are reluctant to sign CLAs.

I came across some Scheme/Racket/? library recently that attempts to quantify contribution levels and distribute any received funds fairly based on that. Unfortunately, I can't find it at the moment, but it was a cool idea.

For over 14 years, I've been actively developing Nodemailer, a hugely popular project. There has been no CLA in place, and the main outside commits I get are typo fixes during Hacktoberfest. This is why I'm still the owner of 98% of the committed code in Nodemailer. Usually, if I do not fix or build something, no one else will either.

I mean... yeah? Correct me if I'm wrong but you profited off their labor without compensating them, right? Why should the number of people you did that to make it less wrong? Obviously a corpo making bajillions of dollars without paying you sucks, but by sheer number of people negatively affected, it's still the same lol, in this case you're just the one with the bag, instead of a corporation.

I've been experimenting with just throwing my hands up and doing flat profit share, but we haven't really had an opportunity to really try this at scale (for a bunch of boring reasons), but I'm curious how it'll look. I don't think we'll have the crazy huge ratios you do on your FOSS though so I can see why that wouldn't be feasible for someone in your position.

With 0.1% of commits it's not a likely problem, but if developers are making significant contributions then there's a good chance they'll fork your product as of the last LGPL commit and keep developing it as a direct competitor. It's safer to just not take contributions at all.

I'm not picking on you, FOSS projects aren't really set up for anything like shared revenue yet, and almost nobody's thinking about it.

But in the future, monetized FOSS projects need to pay out to their contributors. By default, contributors own copyright to the code they share, and forcing them to surrender that for free won't be acceptable.

It's called Attribution-Based Economics, it pays out to all contributors based on some measure of relative contribution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xnppM6GG9Q https://drym.org/attribution-based-economics-for-open-source...

Isn't this a rug-pull?

Open source project which others havecontributed to, and whose reputation was earned by nature of being open source.

Than, after you have users, switch to proprietary. Sounds bad to me, but maybe I didn't fully understand?

BTW, Apple used to have a thing with Darwin server where you could disable the license check legally, but only a hacker would do that. Companies still paid for the software. That sounds like a better solution, IMO - at least for those that are two small to pay but growing by the seat of their pants can still use and promote the software.

Looking to do something similar in terms of offering better, paid alternatives to the existing solutions out there in a source-available fashion.

Anyone here experiencing trouble with tools you'd terribly want someone to improve?

So the author can just write whatever validity date/license details (apparently hostname etc), sign it and give that to their customers.

EC beats other signatures because signature is muuuuuch shorter, so it can still look like an API key.

embed the public part in your application and you can verify that something signed with the 'dgst' command and the private key really has been signed with the private key (which you obviously shouldn't publish)

(Note if using plain commands there is more friendly than openssl, minify/signify are much harder to get wrong, but I'm not sure they're as easy to use programmatically in as many languages there are for libcrypto/sodium/etc; this is really just an example)

A lot of time, circumventing a license check would be more work than - say - implementing sending email on their own. Depending on what the service is.

Developers think they’re selling fancy tech. Most often, what we’re selling/providing is convenience - something boring that just works.

Signs, locks, and copyrights keep honest people honest. They don't change anyone else's behavior.

The process to become an ISV on AWS takes a bit of work though.

After a quick search, EDP seems to stand for Enterprise Discount Program, and PPA means Private Pricing Addendum.

If it's $5/user/month, with 3 plans, with add-ons and it's unclear how many people you have to on board (just devs? Maybe business too? Does security team need access?) it's much harder discussion as nobody knows final cost (apart from the fact that we're not gonna like it in the long run).

They made it very clear that they only really cared about enterprise customers.

  Next, I started to increase the pricing; 250€ became 495€, then 695€ and 795€, and finally 895€. To my surprise, it did not mean getting fewer customers. I guess any sub-$1k amount for businesses is peanuts, so the only thing these price increases changed was improving the revenue.

This is the root of most things like the BSL. You create an open source project or product, and companies with billions in quarterly revenue build the core of their business on your software, and meanwhile won't contribute to your ongoing viability (nevermind actual success) even in amounts that are entirely trivial for them. Toss the cloud providers into it now and it's even uglier.

Even the right open source license, such as the AGPL, would probably have worked well, with the proprietary license as an option (in the same way he tried LGPL + MIT).

For SaaS companies who just want to use the software on their backend and are not interested in redistributing it in any way, there's no realistic difference between LGPL and more permissive licenses like MIT and BSD.

Edit down voters might ask themselves what is much older than 15 years that some companies pay a lot of money for?

I have a difficult time believing that any piece of code that can be "sat on for 15 years" would disrupt anything. 15 years, especially in tech, feels like a couple generations these days.

In a larger sense, we desperately need a societal shift in perspective from naively viewing companies as benevolent by default, to viewing companies as they actually are by default: they'll literally kill people if it's profitable.

Even GPL is pretty low risk for a hosting company, but LGPL's risk is strictly lower.

I'm quite sure that I don't work for the only such company.

He made a small business and he's targeting small companies who are probably still running a cracked version of photoshop CS6.

Big companies have rules about which OSS licences they can use and enforce them on their developers. Developers in general will just skip it and pick an alternative they can use without problems from legal and possibly without paying.

So even with the license in place, I don't think it would ever magically attract big clients.

I think the author needs something a bit more unique or way better sales to get larger businesses. They are all likely on Amazon SES or SendGrid.

How would copyleft* have prevented this?

AGPL might, but GPL (and therefore, copyleft) doesn't prevent the upthread outcome.

* - GPL is the prototypical/original [as far as I know] widely-used example of a copyleft license and the startup using nodemailer could have done that just as well (and for free) if nodemailer was GPL-licensed.

Doctors would kill for profit. Politicians would. The same for engineers, cookers. Any profession, activity or line of business really.

That's human nature. But not all humans. Not even majority, I'd say certainly.

The problem is that this small minority gets 99% of the news. Very rarely one hears when a CEO avoids a decision that could endanger someone. Or when a Doctor is honest and preserves the patient's health above all.

It doesn't mean these good things aren't happening all the time. Look at your life and remember: how many people could have done harm to you for a profit? How many do you remember actually doing it?

Perhaps no, but a corporation has no compunctions about killing for profit. Let's take the direct approach, and list some that will take money and a target list, and make those people dead for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_military_contr...

Here's a list of companies in the USA who will sell you the tools you need to kill people at scale:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_defense_...

But I think that's not exactly what we're talking about, we're talking more about how the corporate entity under this current system shields organizations of people from the deaths their decisions cause.

GM knowingly let people die due to a defect in their vehicles that they were aware of: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/why-did-gm-t...

PG&E was found culpable for the pipeline rupture that killed 8 people and destroyed 38 homes in San Bruno in 2010, because they ignored inspection data.

An article came out a few weeks ago about how immigrant child laborers are being killed in shocking volumes in American factories https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/feb/12/i...

Here's a fun that goes through a bit of the history of corporations killing people directly (murdering trade unionists) and indirectly (tobacco companies suppressing research). https://jacobin.com/2020/01/corporations-profit-values-murde...

There's something uniquely devilish about the corporation in our current legal and economic system.

Corporations don't do anything, the people in them do.

People working at GM didn't act to fix their vehicles and people died.

People at PG&E chose not to perform actions based upon inspection data, and people died when their infrastructure failed.

According to your Jacobin article, people at Coca Cola killed those trade unionists.

How about let's not let the legal wrapper for people protect those who murder others?

But a big part of why that isn't happening is that when people kill people from behind the shield of a corporation, we can't even get people to agree that anything should be done about it, because "they were just following incentives". And any attempt to change the incentives is met with "but how can they do business if they're expected to comply with these onerous regulations" or "but that's socialism!". Instead, we're just supposed to trust that if it made money for a corporation it must have been good, because the invisible hand of the market would never allow it to be otherwise.

Until we break the idea that corporations are good by default, it's going to be hard to persuade people that going after people within a corporation for their wrongdoing is a good idea.

Which country are we talking about?

It seems like you're trying to make the argument that some companies don't need a rule against murder because they wouldn't commit murder, but that's absurd. It isn't unfair to have a rule against murder apply to a company that wouldn't commit murder. That's just how rules work, and if you have to pretend you don't understand that, I start to think you're just grasping at straws to try to justify being against a rule against murder for companies.

If you're generally against economic regulation for companies, you might correctly point out that companies committing murder is a pretty extreme example, and most regulations aren't against such extremes. But that's missing the point. The situation is that extreme; people within corporations are committing murders and the corporations are receiving, at best, slap on the wrist fines or civil settlements that only affect shareholders and rarely affect the decision-makers who committed murder. No matter how anti-regulation you are, surely we can agree that "we can't have a rule against murder" is too little regulation?

Some corporations aren't in a situation where killing people is profitable.

But every corporation will come across situations where harming people is profitable, and if they don't harm people in that situation, one of their competitors will.

People like Yvonne Chounard who manage to avoid unethical practices AND create a profitable company are the exception, not the rule, and he was aware of that, which is why he went to great lengths creating an atypical corporate management structure to try to preserve the ethics of Patagonia in his absence.

> Doctors would kill for profit. Politicians would. The same for engineers, cookers. Any profession, activity or line of business really.

> That's human nature. But not all humans. Not even majority, I'd say certainly.

You're fundamentally not understanding what I'm saying.

It's not the doctors I'm worried about. Doctors have to look their patients in the eye usually.

It's not the cooks I'm worried about, because they're generally poor, and don't have the means to avoid regulation.

It's not the engineers I'm worried about, because they generally don't get paid more if their work kills people (with the exception of those in the manufacturing of weapons). In fact, it's often engineers that are the whistleblowers saying "we told them what was wrong and they did it anyway" when the decision is made to do something dangerous.

And if you think the majority of politicians won't kill to keep power, please tell me what country you are in so I can move there. I can only think of a handful of elected politicians at the federal US level who aren't obvious de-facto murderers.

The people I'm worried about the most are the C-level execs, board members, and majority shareholders: the kind of people who can put a numerical value on what it will cost to not kill people, and then justify it to themselves and never have to look their victims or their victims' families in the eye.

> I searched my mailbox for emails related to that company and found a single complaint about a feature. No pull requests, no donations, no nothing.

I even got a YC interview based on this idea for last summer's batch (rejected primarily for being a solo founder, they seem to like solo founders only if they had a previous exit), but ultimately I gave up on the project because I realized I didn't actually like the problem space, it seemed too boring for me after a while and I wanted to concentrate on building things I thought were interesting.

Well… better late than never. Congrats!

https://anonymoushash.vmbrasseur.com/2018/08/24/open-source-...

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26602316

Sure, open source is not a business model, it defines a set of software programs that respect some rules: the OSD [1].

But you can certainly have a business model around open source software.

[1] https://opensource.org/osd

And on HN, it's actually true. Open Source projects get lots of kudos here.

The problem is, others may see what is essentially a marketing strategy aimed at a niche audience and conclude that Open Source is an essential, in fact they most essential, part of the business. Hence the need to remind people that Open Source is not a business model.

It must be around an idea that will speak to me at the time if it ever happens, but the open source part is important to me for ethical reasons. I'm not interested in running a software business if it's not open source.

And so I'm interested in reading others about their business experiences around open source. What is their actual project is important since it has consequences on how the business will be run, but the exact project won't matter too much to me as a reader and it does not really matter to me if it doesn't appear in the title, I will click.

Now the headline is a bit disappointing since the article is really "How I didn't keep doing open source when I turned my project into a business".

- Motivation is a precious resource. If you are more motivated to work in an Open Source software business, then this will prevent burnout.

- You have to ask if you're playing to play, or playing to win [0]. If you're playing a game with self-imposed rules that exist only in your head, you put yourself at a huge disadvantage.

[0] https://commoncog.com/playing-to-play-playing-to-win/

If I have to use this frame, the game I play is "Be happy" fundamentally. A way to do this is "Spend time doing things that makes me happy". I'm happy if I agree with what I do (not sufficient, but necessary). Let's assume one needs money to live (another game, this one imposed by society). A way to earn money is work. Work could be purely seen as a way to support one's free time. But work usually takes a lot of time so I'd better have one that makes me happy.

I currently work in an open source company so doing non open source would be a downgrade. Now, nothing would prevent me to softly transition, with part time for instance. I can try making "trying to start a business" not too risky.

So, play to play or play to win? I think I play to win, the question is which game I play?

Running a business will certainly not be the game I play. That would be a means, not an end. A means to spend happy time while also playing the game imposed by society.

Now, running my business will need to be more fulfilling than my current position, and the bar is very high. I don't get to work on exactly what I decided and schedule, while very flexible, is imposed, but everything else is great (including nice people to work with, interesting and useful stuff to do, open source, many days off, ...).

You nailed it with your remark about motivation and burn out. I can work on non open source code (for instance for internal stuff), but I'd not be happy with proprietary software targeting end users (against my values) and I'm more happy if my time is spent doing open source.

Something causing burn out is in fact a move one can't play.

Now, open source, if not the easiest path, has its business advantages too. More and more (public) places requires, or favor it. If you happen to target these places, you may be advantaged against your non open source competitors.

Stripe for people who don't care about taxes or are large enough to have an accountant do it for them.

All the EU makers I know are using some sort of MoR. Stripe is still very popular in USA for makers who sell to USA, as sales taxes have tresholds; unless you sell a lot from an individual state, you don't have to worry about it.

VATMOSS in Europe (the regulation which drove all the small sellers I know to drop their ecommerce websites and move to Amazon - talk about regulation to protect the people and damage Big Business!) doesn't have tresholds and you need a massive up to date VAT list + storing proof of user residing somewhere.

> I also changed the license from LGPL to a commercial license.

OK ...

> Derivatives works (including modifications or anything statically linked to the library) can only be redistributed under LGPL

If you accepted PRs without a contributor agreement transferring the ownership, you might be infringing on their IP (licensed to you and others).

It seems to me he could just keep the license GPL then, wouldn't change a thing. The (small) businesses don't care about the license, but walk the path of least resistance.

I see this all the time in universities. Underfunded open source projects won't get a $100 donation from a university using thousands of copies, but a company like Matlab can get massive payments just because that's the only way to get it. You have to figure out how to make it easy to justify paying for your software.

One trick I want to try is, make everything open source but still paywall some features behind a license check. Easy to circumvent (and legal, too), but maybe businesses wouldn't be bothered with it, and for personal use – well, why not allow it – maybe some of them would convince their employers to use it as well :-) (And of course, providing it as a service is a much more straightforward business model, at least in my case.)

[1]: https://lunni.dev/

That's basically piracy. Unlike individuals who pirate stuff all the time, for businesses there's a much greater risk for lawsuit which is usually not worth it, even for many smaller businesses. For a 1-2 person business that's not making any money, maybe they can get away with it. But they probably don't make a great customer anyway.

Long ago, I worked for a company that sold mortgage software. This is back when SOAP is all the rage. The software is not open source, but it is source-available, or rather, a law firm has the source code. My employer's customers are mostly banks or home builders that offer mortgage services. My employer is a very small one. Customers like banks want to know if you will stick around, if they buy into your software, and if you can't stick around. They need the source code.

One often runs into issues with a third-party library that comes down to not understanding what's going on under the hood. In cases like this, it's really helpful to be able to look at the source and see what the issue is, you can also (in some cases) track PRs that address issues you are encountering.

I've found this numerous times with paid third party deps.

I am gonna check out emailengine for future work.

This is really what you should expect when you work to improve the commons in the same world where there are entities that are hyper-optimized to make the most short-term profit out of anything they can exploit. Of course they're not going to give anything back. It could happen to any FOSS dev. It sucks, and it's definitely human to look at all the money they're making and feel like you deserve some of it. You do deserve it! Everyone deserves to make a living. But the world is still a better place with FOSS in it. It's a shame for this to happen to someone and for them to decide that improving the commons was a mistake and instead they should have been making projects that FOSS orgs can't use and individuals and small orgs are priced out of (but is still "peanuts" for big businesses.) If you make best-in-class software that's FOSS, everyone benefits, and you can feel proud that individuals have access to the same resources as big corps because of what you've done.

I'm also tentatively in favour of the idea of scaring away big corps with GPLv3 or AGPL licensed software.

* why I am doing that

* plethora of burned-out maintainers and their posts

* how I am going to deal with the issues/PRs, toxic entitlement

* what's my exit strategy

The first thing before you go into open source (provided it's actually used open source) is to answer these questions honestly for yourself. Because it's massive time sink with no money and *there will never be money* (unless you go open core or your employer pays you, in that case that's just a job just like any other).

I don't view people taking the time to open issues as entitled people, but people offering their free time providing invaluable feedback.

Those issues are quite often different from what I expect, and they represent of how people are using the software.

The only mistake the author did was waiting too much monetizing, not doing open source software in the first place.

BTW good luck to scaling up to $60k / month, it will be fun

GPL scares freeloaders.

https://github.com/cla-assistant/cla-assistant/issues/534

Very terse answer that says:

  As you noticed, this would mean a completely different line of code

I felt like this was a very strange response to a legitimate question and it makes me feel like there must be something more there.

Which they address in the later part of their answer which you leave out:

Surely most parts of the project could be reused, but this development would still mean a huge investment, which we can't afford. Nevertheless all kinds of contribution are still welcome and we would try to provide our support as good as we can.

It just didn't jibe with me and still feels like it is an easy and obvious upgrade.

But, you are right, they did justify it, it seems like an overstatement to say it would be a huge investment. I should review the code myself to verify, but a statement like that the lazy programmer in me shy away from even doing that.

And i can imagine that maybe they didn't abstract communication with Github enough and would need to refactor the system to handle that as well.

Generally, i think it's not totally reasonable to expect them to do more free work to support use cases that the maintainer does not need. Since it's open source, we're all welcome to contribute back.

See e.g. usage here https://community.sap.com/t5/technology-blogs-by-sap/one-cod...

At the end I didn't, but I'm really happy you found a way to live with it.

Congratz!

To all of you around here who do FOSS, please reconsider this kind of attitude. The ones offering can be employees, and they had to argue your case.

Just a couple weeks ago I asked a maintainer of one our Rust dependencies to give us a quote for fixing an issue. I had beforehand negotiated the deal with the CTO, it could have been anywhere up to $5k for roughly one day of work. No license involved, just money against some of their time to improve their open source code. To my dismay, they refused and did it "for free" while giving us a link for a donation.

Guess what? The donation never came. It doesn't make sense for the ones who think in ROI, even less for the CFO behind them. Now I'm too ashamed to even show up on the issue board so we're all at a loss.

For example, here in France, there's no such thing as "freelance". As an individual, you can't just invoice somebody. You need to set up some form of "enterprise". Sure, there are some forms which are supposed to be easier to set up, but you still have to go out of your way and do it. You can't just declare the income on your tax return. And now that you've created a company, you need to file tax returns every year, even if you don't do anything. It's also not free, an actual accountant has to sign them off (this may not be the case for the smallest forms of companies). Sending your taxes to the fiscal administration is also not free (fun fact: VAT is levied on that fee).

As for being an "auto entrepreneur" (equivalent of a sole trader), you don't need an accountant at all and the paperwork is rather small. Definitely worth it as it means you have some recurring revenue already.

> As for being an "auto entrepreneur" (equivalent of a sole trader), you don't need an accountant at all and the paperwork is rather small. Definitely worth it as it means you have some recurring revenue already.

Good to know, especially since, IIRC, they've removed the special social security you had to have for that kind of company.

[0] https://www.economie.gouv.fr/entreprises/impot-sur-revenu-bi...

We are not referring to the same thing, I think. You're looking at the tax for corporates when I'm looking at individuals [0]. The key seems to be that it's has to be exceptional and not regular. I'd still double-check on a case by case basis with the tax bureau before going ahead, but I've found them to be helpful in the past.

It does make sense for niches like these to exist, otherwise you'd end up having to setup a legal entity before being on the receiving end of a transaction as an individual.

[0] https://www.impots.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/media/1_metie...

Aren't there subtleties, for example, when doing inter-state commerce (assuming the two parties are both US-based)? In the EU, VAT isn't charged the same way if you invoice an entity based in your country or one based outside of it.

It's just a matter of not offering to work for free to a corporation that really doesn't need your generosity.

ad 1) No, you don't need to. At least in Germany anybody who's legally competent can write invoices. If the invoices are secondary income, you will be taxed heavily (and declare it you must), but that's it. It has been some time since I last lived and worked in the USA, but I mean to recall that it was basically the same. Of course, invoiced money is your money now and you need to donate it to the FOSS project, which then needs some kind of treasury. But you said as much already.

ad 2) No, you don't need to. Your employer is your employer, not your owner. Now I don't know about the USA today (see above) but in European countries what you do outside working hours is your private affair -- discounting a few, very specific fringe cases. If you play soccer, dabble in explosives, or code for money doesn't matter. And frankly, your typical employer in most cases does not care anyway.

2) In my experience, not true. Most often an employee needs to get a pre-approval that often take too long. As a full time developer, there's difference between playing soccer and developing software.

Some projects might not be setup for either, but it sounded to me like the above poster was dealing with some one who was willing to accept it as a donation, and it would likely have been trivial to send an invoice for 5000.

It astounds me that companies would rather waste hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of just throwing a few thousand that will benefit them in the long haul.

I genuinely believe more companies should adopt a policy of just letting devs work half a day on fridays on whatever they want, whether it be technical debt, or even open source projects the company depends on. Maybe that would be more feasible, but even then lots of places would still not understand the value.

It's difficult to judge because maybe the project had a hard budget so even if having me implement things resulted in a costlier and possibly worse result it made more sense due to not resulting in a new discretionary cost. But I think it was more due to cultural background where the person was used to not pay much for software. My experience working with CEO was the opposite, those kinds of costs were pre-approved.

If it’s an ROI problem, the return is getting the issue resolved.

Lesson: Unless you're registered as a 501(c), or an organization with similar status in your jurisdiction, don't even think of accepting "donations" from anyone who retains an accountant. It just doesn't work that way, open source or not.

I told them to continue using it for free until it can attract at least 100 customers. Then it might be worth the hassle.

This is one of the reasons I have never set up sponsorships on any of my GitHub accounts (my taxes are complicated enough).

In a way it feels against "the spirit", but maybe it's exactly the same way of thinking you're pointing out.

I suppose some have argued that FOSS represents a Public Commons in the way that fields and wells and physical marketplaces used to, but none of those things survived capitalism, so I don't see why a technological commons should be expected to either.

For me I've been thinking lately that perhaps those interested in FOSS should instead consider how we can use FOSS to detach ourselves from needing to participate in global capitalism at all. Is there FOSS technology we can use to liberate people from things they need to spend money on right now? An example could be the Global Village Construction Set: https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/ a set of open source designs for things like hydraulic motors or microcombines or steam engines that you can build on your own, usually not for cheap, but for far, far cheaper than you could buy from John Deere. Here's another cool project, some guy has just been building things like solar panels and basic circuit boards on his property from very base components for years: https://simplifier.neocities.org/

Some other FOSS liberation examples:

Combining a tool like Jellyfin with Sonarr, Radarr, and etc, can liberate people from their 5 different media subscriptions. Or at least they can still buy DVDs and put them on Jellyfin to have the convenience of streaming with the media library of their own choosing.

Deploying Matrix or another FOSS communication tool can let organizations have enterprise-level communication software without paying HUGE seat-based license fees to corporations like Slack.

In fact there's many ways to liberate yourself from paid SaaS in this list: https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted at my co-op we self-host and deploy all our services for this reason, it saves us a TON of money.

I don't have many other examples to mind because this is something I'm actively still researching. Friends in Venezuela though especially tell me how FOSS technology can liberate in ways I wouldn't expect here with my 64gb RAM machine with the latest processor, that I can easily replace components on on a whim. Such as how they can keep all their broken down machines pieced together from junkyards running pretty ok on various linux distros, and how they can sell creative work using free tools like gimp (no, really) or darktable. Like as not they'll just pirate software, though, but apparently FOSS often runs better on shitty hardware.

Anyway my long term plan is to find or build more and more things that let people just not spend money on things anymore. That could be by making it easier to not have to throw things away anymore, or building tools to replace proprietary ones, or, idk, other ways I haven't thought of.

At a bare minimum, you should probably at least use the GNU General Public License version 2.

Shipping OSS is a donation of one's time, money, and expertise. Volunteering is a rewarding way to participate in a community.

Usually in any community, you meet someone who opens a door to an opportunity that you never would have found otherwise.

> If you did not provide a valid license key 15 minutes after the application started, the app just stopped working.

IMO, all of the shenanigans with license changes (MIT/LGPL/etc) are nothing to most users. On HN we are sensitive to these nuances . But in the "real world" of corporate worker bees just trying to get stuff done I doubt it even registers.

More likely what happens is someone searches for a solution to a problem, installs it and sees if it works and then moves on with their day. Except they can't move on if the software stops working after 15 minutes. Clearly it is doing what they need, so now they need to unblock themselves.

We might assume they'll read the code, find the license check and remove it. And I bet some percentage do exactly that. But some percentage of users would rather swipe a credit card for $X instead.

I'm sure many people would've paid because the free version was not advertised.

All I'm asking is, if you want to eventually make money on your project, at least be up front about it in the beginning so that your users can make an informed decision when they decide whether to bake it into their stack.

The rug-pull approach is always a much worse look in the end.

I think the main issue is the name. If a project is made more commercial or proprietary than it was before, please change the name (or additionally use a different name for the commercial/proprietary part, which seems to be common practice even when starting a project as partly open source). A clean break between different maintainers (particularly when a mostly single person effort) is a good reason to change the name too. Naming things is hard and it doesn't necessarily need to be all that different a name just something to reflect the change.

That's what "must be freely redistributable" means though.

Treat CLA as that: an upfront statement that the author may and probably will change the license in the future.

Hashicorp prominently displayed that they were committed to open source and that all of their projects would be open source forever.

They had a CLA, but there are 2 good reasons to do this besides removing the OSS license:

* You may want to be able to also offer the software under an alternate license, which some companies do due to the demands of a corporate client (e.g. one offered with a support agreement)

* You may want the ability to relicense under a different OSS license.

As long as the article author didn't make any promises about continued commitment to OSS, I don't see anything deceptive here (because without such a statement, a CLA usually means you want to relicense in the future)

Hashicorp on the other hand pulled a jerk move by misleading the community as it formed, and which also contributed a lot to both Terraform and the corpus of terraform providers, etc.

Like a project could be born out of pure generosity, but after the happy initial phase the project might get too heavy on the maintenance requirements, causing the author to approach burnout, and possibly deciding that they want to make money to continue pulling the cart forward.

However, here's something I do think: if you create something as Open Source, it should be out of a mentality of goodwill and for the greater good, regardless of how it ends up being used. OSS licenses do mean this with their terms. If you later get tired or burned out, you should just retire and allow the community to keep taking care of it. Just like it happened with the Jq tool [1].

[1]: https://github.com/jqlang/jq/releases/tag/jq-1.7

But of course, OSS ought to be, as I mentioned, a contribution to the greater good. If there are enough people interested in keeping something alive, they should be allowed to do so.

But, as TFA states:

> I guess any sub-$1k amount for businesses is peanuts, so the only thing these price increases changed was improving the revenue.

Businesses spend money to solve problems. $1k is a lot of money for a consumer product, but for a business product, $1k when something is business critical and handles high volume is significantly cheaper than hiring a person or contractor to solve the problem.

Furthermore, the benefit goes both ways, as Reinman now supports the product full-time. The business customers are now working with a product that has full-time support, instead of hobbyist support.

A person changed their mind. That is okay.

In real world, when maintainers change the license, if a software is widespread enough, a fork is created, and at least part of the community moves to it.

Others tried to fork markdown, which is also fine. But they forked it and named it Standard Markdown without good communication with Gruber about the project naming. It then got ugly.

https://blog.codinghorror.com/standard-markdown-is-now-commo...

Edit: I just realised how long ago this happened - 2014. The project appears to be active on GitHub and is now called Common Markdown.

The thing is, they didn't fork it, they decided to "standardize" it. John Gruber had already published a Markdown standard: https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/, and a reference implementation. He's fine with variations on his standard existing, even somewhat encouraging, but took it as a personal insult that others set out on their own initiative to "standardize" something which already had both a standard and an implementation of it. I don't blame him at all.

The outcome isn't so bad, really. We have a whole family of variations on Markdown, which is sometimes annoying for inter-op reasons but it's a lightweight plain-text standard, making a few tweaks to parse it with a different engine isn't going to ruin your day. CommonMark ended up being an acceptable standard for a minimum-but-extended dialect which the diverse implementations can (mostly) implement, which was the goal, and better yet, people don't get to be dicks about "that isn't Markdown" by reference to the CommonMark standard. Gruber made sure of that, and bless him for it.

Thanks.