Software License

When I see Open Source license debates here, it's usually MIT vs GPL. What choices are there for a person who wishes to allow something like a GPL version for the community, but one which requires a fee for commercial purposes. Too often big corporations cuck even GPL'd projects merely by burying a link to the source code (often obfuscated) on their website and then fail to contribute anything back.

Other urls found in this thread:

ni.com/multisim/what-is/
fritzing.org/home/
zlib.net/zlib_license.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why do you believe that GPL doesn't allow for commercial purposes?

It can be used in commercial applications as long as they provide the source. That's not in dispute here. From the perspective of a developer, what off the shelf licenses permit community freedom and prohibit commercial use, unless compensation is made?

By that standard, there is no open source license that will do that. The open source definition requires that there shouldn't be any discrimination against any fields of endevor i.e. commercial use.

Try the "GPL-plus-Fucking-Dickhead-Maintainer-Exception v1.0" license. It works well for Oracle and Patrick McHardy.

Are you talking about something like Qt?

Ahh yeah that's a perfect example. With these I assume you need to got a lawyer to write up a custom contract, instead of copy pasting a premade one.

Yeah it seems dual licensing is the only way to go.

Are you high? The "community" is all cucks and fucks. You'll end up getting CoC'd and kicked out of your own proeject. It will then be morphed into a systemd sjw abomination and rewritten in grusto. Just go full commercial license, plain and simple. And if possible, never release the code to anyone, ever, unless they give you shitloads of money.

Hard not to feel like a cuck though if your open source project is included in a system which is making someone millions of dollars, and they don't even contribute back
Wonderful, I can print that on my wall, but if I'm going to be a cuck, I might as well go full MIT.

t. ignorant armchair consumer

...

When I say community, I mean us here on Holla Forums. If it should happen that some soyboys forked my project and CoC'd it, that would just become their problem while I continued to work on the 'real' project.

Dual license it under a noncommercial-but-otherwise-gpl-like license and a classic commercial one against money. Sort of like CC-BY-NC.
But it really depends on the software, if it for internal use by corporations noncommercial makes sense, if it is for end-user deployment GPLv3 will be a big enough deterrent for them not to use it because they want the consumer to not have freedom.

Source code is only needed when a binary is distributed/shared.
If you sell a binary you have to share the source code on a support of anykind, and when I say anykind it can be paper if you want (and it happened once).
But the GPL or mit or bsd doesn't stop someone from sharing it.
Selling software is a dying model and the best economic model is to either sell services or to scam people but scamming is what MS does and that isn't very ethical.
And besides that not the problem of this condition of mandatory retribution if it's shared means DRMs it's a STOP from sharing the software thus it blocks freedom 2 and 3.

And you won't even get back source code modifications that are made publicly

Problem is with you people is that you have little imagination and of how business and contracts works between companies.

do you even need a lawyer?

just take the GPL license, bastardize it and cut out all the sticking points that prevent you from shilling your product, and publish under a "GPL Derived" license.

Not really, commercial sales for video games, especially on mobile are going very strong. There are also plenty of desktop applications without adequate open source replacements. When you enter the real world and have to produce quality products, you'll find that open source just doesn't cut it. The reason is that difficult projects ultimately require sponsorship, as the herculean efforts of some projects do not attract enough unpaid help before even the founder gives up due to boredom.

They sell entertainment, the source of the major engines is available. Mobile games are mostly f2p/p2w so they sell services.

There are also plenty of desktop applications without adequate open source replacements. When you enter the real world and have to produce quality products, you'll find that open source just doesn't cut it. The reason is that difficult projects ultimately require sponsorship, as the herculean efforts of some projects do not attract enough unpaid help before even the founder gives up due to boredom.
Are you a mentally ill BSD cuck? Free software is not equal to unpaid developers, most Linux kernel contributors get paid to do so. The thing is that letting some proprietary software vendor handle everything and get eternally extorted by licenses is just the easier and on the short term cheaper way to get complex software. You are clearly unwilling to pay for the development of free software and instead fund the proprietary kind and then complain about the former not being competitive. Your actions have consequences. Bear them. Smarter players like RedHat realise that it is stupid to put yourself at the mercy of MS and collaborate with others on free software they all use without being abused by the proprietor.

I addressed that. I said that projects ultimately require sponsorship.

Yes! Many free software projects look completely unstable to me. When I see some blue haired faggots complaining about privilege instead of the lack of vectorization in an intensive operation, that hardly instills confidence. It can't just be me either, Gimp has been around for eons and still cannot hold a candle to photoshop. Or for a more recent example, I was playing around with circuit design, and there is nothing in the open source world that even comes close to a package like ni.com/multisim/what-is/

More like content but it's the same.

Yes and while we're at it free software isn't used by 98% of super calculators, microsoft, cars and literally every intel CPUs in the world.
I just like these sort of arguments because it's either because you haven't worked in the "real world" or that you are incompetent.
No, one of the reasons it's difficult it's because people want everything for gratis and MS understood that very well, so well that when people buy their computers at wallmart they don't even know that they actually pay for the software inside it.

No they don't, it all depends who manages the resources and developers aren't known to be good at managing that.
fritzing.org/home/

Imagine if they had a programming language where all the keywords were moron-words like "fuck", "cuck", "nigger", "faggot". Maybe you'd be able to contribute enough to the industry to hold a valid opinion.

Some free software is used (usually sponsored by large companies) therefore all tasks can be adequantely handled by open source code which magically exists...
Huh? Would it help you if the term sponsorship was replaced with investment? You can't just wish complex solutions out of thin air.

Fritzing looks nice, will check it out, but I don't think it's going to compete against multisim. Perhaps it is good for my needs, but if I were an electrical engineer, it likely wouldn't cut it.

Contributing back to my open source project isn't a big concern to me. I am more concerned that the users who receive the software also get their essential freedoms with that software. I am very happy for a commercial endeavor to make millions with the help of my software for as long as they also respect the users who use that software.

I am very happy to contribute to the breast implants of another man's woman with the help of my money(=time) as long she'll show them to anyone who asks.

Cool story bro

When you say sponsored what those that mean ?
Because if paying someone to do a task like lets say making a intel GPU driver for the linux kernel is sponsoring then literally everyone is sponsored, if the linux kernel is sponsored by intel and what not it's because the linux kernel project do task in exchange.

Just use the free-est license you can: 2-clause BSD.

zlib license is freer.

zlib.net/zlib_license.html

Meaning that someone is paying for the development. As opposed to a hobby project that some guy denotes his spare time to, doing it for free.

I don't know why we pretend that the user is always a competent programmer. It might be a reasonable assumption to make when you're talking EMACS, GCC and other GNU bintools, but generally the user is a pure consumer.

Let's say Adobe GPL'd Photoshop and sold each version for $100 and included the source code with their distribution. There is nothing stopping the Chinese from making a trivial change, and then selling it for $10. Adobe is cucked. What is more, some freetard could distribute a release entirely gratis. What's the motivation for Adobe to GPL their software, given that they have no need or desire to depend on other software for their project.

(checked)
I'm the person who you replied to.
The assumption is that the user has access to a developer. The user could ask a developer to make a change for him, or even pay that developer to make the change.

There is nothing stopping them from doing that with a pirated version currently. Keep in mind if they were somewhere which actually respected trademarks and stuff you wouldn't be able to release it as photoshop. You also would need to redo all the assets. That release will also have the problem that updates will be delayed and may not even come at all.
Part of what I previously said applies. Why would regular people and artists trust this freetard? It's like people trusting a torrent for a pirated version. Of course he will need to release the code changes, but what's the chance people will read them. Adobe would seem must more trustworthy and have a much stronger brand that normals would be willing to trust.
I would find it more likely that the free software enthusiast would contribute some cool modifications to the code which he finds useful and others would use those patches to improve their PS experience.
This is true. It's the users who have the need and desire for it to be free software. Whether or not Adobe wants to improve their user experience is up to them I guess.

When I used the term piracy, I meant unauthorized copying

Fair enough, let's say instead of some guy on the internet, it's Microsoft or Corel (I had to check that they're still alive). They have the ability to bankrupt Adobe merely by legally purchasing and subsequently re-releasing the product (with new icons) completely gratis. The problem is that while Adobe may wish to improve the experience for users with access to a compiler, GPL also mandates that they give away the distribution rights. Meaning that while GPL is technically compatible with commercial software, a company would be insane to do it.

Even the approach of retaining clients by providing updates and bug fixes isn't viable, when the turn around time by Microsoft to release those same updates could be mere hours. Unless there is the possibility of a loophole in which Adobe could sell binary blob proprietary 'updates' for their GPL'd code.

(off by one)

None. Only dual-licensing.

If Microsoft or Corel is offering a superior product, then it is fine for Adobe to go out of business. It only makes sense that the superior product will survive.
In the grand scheme of things the situation has improved. Not only would Photoshop be in a superior state, but it would also be free software.
Adobe could also try to keep up though. Their developers will be much more knowledgeable with the codebase and they themselves can take Microsoft's improvements and put them into their program. They could also work on improving the assets for how PS looks so users would prefer to get Adobe's version.

Problem with selling libre software is that at some point it becomes like systemd. In order to keep milking your clients off their blood-earner sheckels, you have to write your software so obscure that in order to master it, people would have to buy your certificates. Call me a commie, but free software distributed for free and maintained by free will developers doing it as a hobby or for beermoney is surprisingly more elegant, stable and end-user friendly.

What the fuck is an "armchair consumer"?

You're making a common mistake that conflates freedom with technical aptitude. Users do not need any kind of technical aptitude to appreciate having freedom. Users who have freedom need to go ask a skilled helper for technical help. Having freedom means it's the user's own responsibility to find helpers to help them.

You're also making a common mistake regarding the business of selling free software. If you feel you can't earn a profit as a software distributor, then don't run your business model as a software distributor! If your software cost you $20000 worth of your time to produce, then don't sell it for anything less than $20000 to a single customer!

Already drawing conclusions without even using it, nice; I can already tell your intentions by that statement. Go back to sucking M$ cock.
Every Intel CPU since 2007/2008 has been running Minix(BSD license) on a separate microprocessor to run the Intel Management Engine.

No no, Microsoft are not doing anything other than drawing new assets. They don't offer the consumer anything new, except they distribute Adobe for free. You get the same product, without paying anything for it. The point is to illustrate that GPL is pure insanity for a business, and that's the reason so little software is GPL'd.

You see, these are the ridiculous measures one has to start contemplating to make the GPL model work.

Your entire post was retarded, but I'm not sure why you even brought that issue up. Everyone knows about ME, what point are you trying to make?

Get out.

Amortization is equally a factor in manufacturing as in software development, you cannot recoup R&D costs by only selling 100 cars for instance. Unit pricing is based on expected demand and total development costs.

Perhaps what you need to realize though, is that since the market is clamouring for "libre software", there will be no change. In fact you see people moving in the opposition direction into more and more walled gardens.

If you can't sell your software without amortization, then don't sell it without amortization. I can sell my GPL software with or without amortization and earn a profit.

People move to walled gardens because they're ignorant of what it means to be free. All the mass marketing points users to judge software on a shallow basis. This is the only way they know so therefore they won't do anything that they don't know. I sell my GPL software for a profit because I teach my clients about what I offer: I offer the act of programming software.

This shit will never work, you're deluded. Suzie Rottencroth isn't going to go ask a creepy autist how do unfuck Arch Linux (mom, pacman fucked up my config again!), much less hire one to modify source codes. No, she's going to go with Apple or Microsoft, who handles everything, and for whose OS all the hardware and software is made for. At the very most she'll take her laptop back to Best Buy or the Apple store and hand it to the customer service chad so they can fix it.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I'm telling that you don't understand people.
This "freedom" you're trying to sell isn't something they desire.

People don't do what they don't know. People cannot choose to get freedom if the only thing they are taught is to submit to the proprietor with the shiniest software.