For those confused like I was, the correct link is https://coopsource.org
(FWIW, I found your entire "wall of text" very interesting, as it was sensible and contains points almost never mentioned. Could've read a longer version.) On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 6:09:25 PM UTC+2, Alan Moore wrote: > > 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 <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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 <[email protected] <javascript:>> > 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:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 >>> >> Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org >>> >> Formerly of Adnet [email protected] 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 [email protected] >> <javascript:> >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <javascript:> >> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. >> 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 [email protected] <javascript:> > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <javascript:> > 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 > [email protected] <javascript:>. > 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 [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
