Agreed. Code is almost beside the point in my mind. I'm not so much promoting a license as promoting a way of doing business, an alternative to the VC funded startup or too short lived/pivoting businesses that leave customers in the lurch. Fairness, resiliency and other factors of a business are far more important than code. The license is just a way of maintaining agency in the work product, a means to an end, not the goal itself.
I didn't mention many aspects of the effort being undertaken - I cut out whole sections of my email as it was already too long. Yes, we intend to provide many valuable services and artifacts beyond just code. Extensive documentation, support, consulting services, third party integrations and many other things that make software worth buying. We also intend to target non-utility, non-platform markets/domains where few OSS projects care to go. In this way we do not so much compete with OSS but compliment it instead. If we can organize ourselves to efficiently target many such markets then we stand a chance of being the only or most reliable competitor. Also, there are advantages to being a cooperative that I won't go into but I will say that we will be re-thinking many basic assumptions in software engineering practices because we feel there are efficiencies to be gained that would otherwise be impossible in more traditional organizations or even with OSS. Again, my apologies for the verbosity. I could literally write a book on this subject. I do not expect many on this list to like this approach, most of you are not our target developer audience but there may be one or two who see the value proposition and might be curious. I suggest any further discussion related to my comments be taken off-list. This is after all the Clojure list :-) See www.coopsource.com for contact details, including a link to our dedicated mailing list. Our Twitter handle is @coopsource. Take care. Alan -- *"Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now."* - *Goethe* On Jun 7, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Daniel Kersten <dkers...@gmail.com> wrote: One thing worth pointing out is that OSS needn't be free as in beer. I've paid for OSS SaaS products because I don't want to host and admin them myself, for example. If your service provides something above and beyond what the source provides (and the OSS freedom), then you *may* still have a business. Maybe. On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 10:42 Alan Moore <kahunamo...@coopsource.org> wrote: > Fergal, > > *Warning* - Wall of text ahead! If you think OSS works perfectly fine the > way it is today feel free to press delete now... > > I've been holding back commenting on this thread to see where it would go. > It is nice to see everyone's take on the need for (or not) a solution to > the lack of an OSS "business model." From what I can tell, there really > isn't a business model in OSS at all. Almost by definition, the "market" > for OSS is a failed market. What other industry/market exists where the > price of goods is $0? > > Freedom issues aside, when you give away the fruits of your hard labor you > are doing just that, giving it away and that in no way constitutes a sale. > The Free Rider problem is alive and well, that is just human nature. I > would love to live in a world where this isn't true and I actively work > towards a future when we can all just work on whatever scratches our itch, > but so far we are not there yet. > > Of course, ancillary to the lack of a price/valuation for the code itself, > companies still make money by various other means given the environment > created by the OSS they give away. I doubt that Clojure or any other OSS > project has ever made any significant cash flow just giving away code. > Conferences, books, consulting services, freemium, value added Closed > Source/Dual License products and all the rest make up the difference > (hopefully!) Sometimes just the marketing visibility generated by giving > away code is enough to cover the costs of producing it. In that way, OSS > can be accounted for as a marketing "give away" from which other revenue > and "goodwill" will flow. This is obvious stuff we all know. > > To be perfectly honest, I am not a fan of the GPL or any other viral > license. I do not believe "code needs to be free". Code is code, an > inanimate artifact of human labor. Everyone is free to give theirs away - I > think this is admirable and altruistic behavior that we need more of. I'm > very grateful that Rich and all the rest of the Clojure developers, > contributors, library authors, etc. are giving their time, effort and focus > to make this community what it is, awesome! A very big shout out to all of > you. > > Clearly there is a spectrum of software that runs the gamut from operating > systems, languages, databases, tools and other "utility" code, up through > more targeted platforms such as SAS, CRM, SalesForce type systems. Another > example class of software might target an industry such as Construction > Project Management systems or even custom software written in-house or by a > consultancy for a specific customer (that could, in theory, be refactored > and sold to another customer), software written for a specific piece of > hardware (my day job) and finally software written by the NSA, which has no > market value whatsoever. As the utility for a wider audience decreases so > too does the potential market, which in turn affects how licensing terms > are chosen for any given project. > > Each of these classes of software seems to have different requirements for > licensing terms. Typically, OSS projects tend to fall under the "utility" > class and has the widest audience, almost by necessity/definition, and > seems to do best with very lenient license terms. All of these classes of > software overlap to some degree in their needs for things like developer > mind share or the availability of engineers to work on a project, > technology or code base. > > Layered on top of the pragmatic concerns listed above are the larger moral > (e.g. freedom) and societal (IP/patents, OccupyStartups?) factors that > influence the choice of licensing terms for a code base. Clearly the GPL > and other Open Source licenses are very opinionated in their terms. > > In reviewing your license terms, I don't know what class of software your > license is intended to target. Your approach may have a fatal flaw in that > the time it takes to bootstrap is highly variable and having a fixed > deadline might fit some projects/markets but not others. > > In my thirty years of working in the Silicon Valley for many different > startups we were almost always too early into the market. This left us > running out of money and scrambling to find other sources of revenue > (pivoting in modern parlance) and inevitably shuttering the business or > being bought out for very small fractions of the potential value. We built > a Tivo-like system before there was a Tivo, we did ads and coupons on gas > pumps, ATMs and grocery checkout terminals long before there was Groupon, > we built teleradiology systems before telemedicine became a thing, etc. > etc. I once filed a trademark application that described/covered the > features provided by GitHub, LinkedIn, Atlassian, Asana, Slack, AngelList > and Kickstarter -- predating all of them by ten years or more. If only I > had help getting going in those early days... sigh. > > Another problem I see is this, why would I work hard to bootstrap a > project, to prove it has economic viability only to have someone else come > along, fork my code base and compete with me? It seems that the time-bomb > terms will filter out certain classes of software from using the license. > > At the risk of being redundant, I will once again mention the Co-op Source > License. This license has been under development for a number of years now > and attempts to solve the Free Rider problem in OSS. As with your license, > the basic premise is to strike a balance between OSS licensing terms and > traditional closed source licenses. > > It does this by having the code owned by all the members of the > cooperative (often an LLC for the purpose of fitting into existing legal > frameworks.) Members of the cooperative share the code as well as the > rights and responsibilities that come along with building a commercially > viable project. Projects are organized in a democratic fashion w.r.t. > general goals, direction, large decisions, etc. but are run day-to-day like > many OSS projects are by a core group of maintainers with the "lead" role > being rotated on a release by release basis. > > Individual projects are expected to be "federated" into a larger whole (a > not-for-profit corporation) so that the result looks a lot like the Valve > corporation is organized - a very flat organization with lots of autonomy > for individual projects and members with a common support structure that > helps with common services for the members/projects. This organization > would provide funding mechanisms (via membership fees, direct investment > and/or crowdfunding) as well as legal, marketing, sales and other services > for the member projects, either directly or contracted to outside firms. > > By incorporating the seven cooperative principles into our software > license and membership agreements, we enjoy the benefits of being a > cooperative: cooperatives are one of the most stable forms of enterprise, > often surviving two, four or even ten times longer a typical commercial > enterprise. > > It is interesting that someone brought up the subject of Credit Unions vs > Big Banks. Guess what, Credit Unions are cooperatives! I see this approach > providing an alternative to large tech companies like Oracle, Google, > Facebook and or VC backed startups. Cooperatives distribute a majority of > profits back to the members in accordance with their contributions. > Utilizing direct democracy allows each member to have the same power over > the direction of the project(s) and the community as a whole. > > I suppose our visions are divergent in many respects but I do wholly > support your goal of finding a viable commercial alternative to the typical > OSS license. The Co-op Source License is not viral but it is inclusive, > fair, transparent and pragmatic. And of course, source code is *always* > included. :-) > > I have been thinking and working on these topics for an embarrassingly > long time. Most of that time has been waiting for the limitations of > commercializing OSS to become apparent over the OSS hubris of the last > decade or so. I think developers are finally realizing that using an > alternative licensing scheme is both a valuable, sustainable and worthwhile > endeavour. > > Again, sorry for the wall of text... some things just take a bit of > explaining. > > Take care. > > Alan > > P.S. I too am an old-school C++ dev :-) > > On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 3:17:43 AM UTC-7, Fergal Byrne wrote: > >> >> An old-school C++ dev and I have started an initiative to combine the >> best of Open Source with a limited commercial license. It's not a new idea >> - MySQL creator Monty Widenius thought of something less viral in 2013 [1]. >> >> The Time-Bombed Open License [2] is the commercial side of a >> dual-licensed project, best paired with something strongly viral like GPL. >> Essentially, the project owner has 2 (up to 4) years to commercialise their >> product and then must go fully Open Source. The license is viral, so any >> commercial licensees must also use the TBOL and eventually open up their >> derived products. >> >> One major idea is to foster a culture of disruption of exploitative >> industries. If you can develop software to disrupt in your local market, >> your innovation can be used similarly by others elsewhere, and each new >> startup can improve on your work while earning their keep. Eventually, all >> derived products become Open Source and are free to all. >> >> We'd appreciate any comments, feedback and assistance from the wonderful >> Clojure community - we're up on twitter at @OccupyStartups. >> >> Regards, >> >> Fergal Byrne >> >> p.s. I wonder if this might be a solution to the clamour for Datomic to >> be Open Sourced (cough)? >> > [1] >> http://monty-says.blogspot.ie/2013/06/business-source-software-license-with.html >> [2] http://occupystartups.me >> >> -- >> > >> Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT >> >> http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology >> http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne >> >> Founder of Clortex: HTM in Clojure - >> https://github.com/nupic-community/clortex >> >> Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC >> Read for free or buy the book at https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines >> >> e:fergalby...@gmail.com t:+353 83 4214179 >> > Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org >> > Formerly of Adnet edi...@adnet.ie http://www.adnet.ie >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/SbBR6RW5Fr4/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
