The reason why so many avoid the GPL is because of it's copyleft nature. user freedom is important but so is the freedom to earn a living from your work, donations simply don't suffice as the world doesn't run on donations but rather purchasing power.
ultimately what the GPL was trying to protect was the freedom of users having control over their software and the only way to ensure that control was to give users access to source code. unfortunately due to it's copyleft nature it allows users to freely distribute the source code and even sell it without giving back a penny to the original creator, so why not modify the license to ensure protection for the developers right to earn a living by giving the developer the >>*option*<< to limit the user freedom to freely (as in free of charge) redistribute the software and instead focus only on ensuring that the source code remains open? it's a win win for everyone, the developer gets to earn a living and the users get to inspect the source code for personal use. it also keeps parasites away from leeching off of someone else's work, especially corporations (Apple and BSD) of course the developer could also choose to be more permissive and let everyone freely share it at their wish.
>but there are other ways to make money from free software such as by providing support
yes, but unfortunately this is not a viable model for every kind of software
so why not?
The point of the gpl is to be able to collaborate without people profiting off the work is all it is. You're getting paid with other people's labor instead of money.
What if I don't want collaborations? I just care about giving the source code my users and getting fairly paid for it.
then you'd still want to use the gpl... Well the cc by nc is even more restrictive actually.
Except under the GPL anyone can take my source code and redistribute it for free or for money. I want to ensure the right to get paid and give source code to users, that's all. and the GPL is a lousy license for that.
I think the cc by nc means you can't profit from it either but I'm not sure.
Dual license just like Qt does it.
For example:
Pay for these additional features, get the source code, and you don't need to redistribute your source code in your final product if you don't want to.
Or
Don't pay for the additional features, here's the majority of the source code under GPL, if you want to use it this way, comply with the GPL.
Then just make it proprietary.
but I want my users to have control over the source code, I just want a guarantee that I can sell it for money.
the gpl is fine for that really. What's that armor app for 3d modeling called? Anyways that sells the program unless you compile it.
What control exactly?
You already said you don't want them to be able to redistribute it.
basically control over everything over the software, recompile it, view the source, modify it but for personal use only. or if you think you can contribute then you need to contact me directly and ill even pay for your contributions.
the only thing I don't want is for someone to take it the source and give it away for free or make money off of my work, so no freedom to redistribute unless stated other wise.
That's just proprietary software that comes with the source code.
close but with one caveat. in the source available model rights can be instantly revoked and user freedom is taken even for personal use.
in my model I can't and shouldn't have the say in what you do with source code nor can I take it away from you legally.
Well the thing you're looking for is a proprietary license for source code agreement. So, not a free license agreement.
This is the same way Bell licensed the original UNIX system.
Doing this, you become responsible for tracking down pirated copies.
This also means you need to have the user sign a nda for use of the source code.
Yes, but clickable EULAs are also contracts people sign all the time, so making it a click away is an option depending on how non-chalant you want to be.
anyways, at this point, this is just proprietary software with source code, unless you want to dual license.
>at this point, this is just proprietary software with source code
Ok it was a misunderstanding of terms on my end. GPL is fine as it is, I should just custom license my software. or dual license.
interesting, well I don't want people to NOT see the source code, heck you can even redistribute source code I suppose, but you can't redistribute it in binary form or as a program, only the source code.
like for example, Debian wouldn't be able to take the Linux source and compile it and redistribute it they'd have to have an agreement with Linus. unless Linux explicitly stated that anyone can freely distribute it.
You see, Debian distributes their modified version of Linux kernel in a way that conforms to the GPL. They distribute a binary of their version, by default, but they also ensure, that you as an end user of their version of Linux kernel can get access to the source.
They could hypothetically tell you to write them an email to get the source code for their modified version of Linux, and it would still comply. They could even ask for payment in return for their copy of the source code and it would still comply with GPL. RhEL used to do this as their busness model, because they would ask for payment to get their distributuon, and then of course the end user could make as many copies as they wanted. And you might say, but Redhat was for profit, surely they'd want people not to redistribute that code, well originally their only assurance was that major companies would buy the original distro installers through official paying vendors, and that those companies would also buy service contracts on top of that.
look at something like Epic's license agreement for the unreal engine
they provide the full source code for the engine to users who want it, who can then examine it, edit it for personal preference, for bug fixes, adding features, whatever, but cannot redistribute the source externally
Except Epic has full authority over their source code right? source available isn't what I want either, I basically want to ensure that user rights are never revoked upon license agreement. so I can't come back at a later time and say you no longer are entitled to source code.
what you want is something bizarre and intricate
hire a lawyer cause its gonna be from scratch
Sorry anon, that can't really work that way, because you'd be giving up your claim to sue someone over wrongful redistribution of your source code. The way American intellectual property rights are preserved are that you have an accuser vs an accused in a claims court. You actively would need to seek people out that have voilated your terms of service in order to bring about any recompense for damage they've caused by breach of license. Nothing magically keeps your software safe from wrongful redistribution, that's why companies often put so much trade secret code into their binaries that detects pirating. Because it's the only way to try to stop piracy from the end user side except suing nearly every single person that did something wrong. Additionally if you put copy protection on your software that is under the DMCA and others, you could put federal charges against a pirate for breaking your encrypted copyright protection. Usually this is only brought against people that bootleg, or people that are in bad with the feds to begin with and the feds need something to hang against them.
A random person that decides to break the disk encryption on their copy of Adobe Flash 5 for personal use, is technically commiting an offense but will never bite him because who would even care enough to charge him with the crime.
... I'm not a lawyer btw.
Your whole thread is basically "I want to have my cake and eat it".
>I want GPL... but not that part of GPL
>I want people to use my code... but not Tim Apple
>I want to give users access to source code and restrict redistribution.... but I don't want "Source Available"
>I want a licence agreement that restricts users' rights... but I don't want to revoke users' rights
then you just want no redistribution. will stop a company, won't stop normal people.
GPL doesn't say anything about not selling. It just requires that the source code and all the rights of the gpl be made available to the users of that software.
The caveat being, if your users have the right to redistribute, according to the gpl, then redistributing copies of it, even without paying you additional fees is also allowed. That being said, you might find the revenue you make from legitimate sales avenues is good enough, and if someone tries to sell a product that uses your source code directly or links to it, despite not giving the same rights of the gpl to their users, you can sue them for violating your license agreement.
then your project is just OSS, not FOSS
aren't there already licenses that do that?
Also I think a community can thrive on donations, just look at twitch and camwhores and all that garbage. We just need a good santa list. Every christmas eve, each freetard makes a list of the 10 nicest foss creators/maintainers, and sends them a small donation.
>I think a community can thrive on donations
See the OP
>yes, but unfortunately this is not a viable model for every kind of software
i saw the op, I disagreed.
you could disagree but you haven't demonstrated how donations are a viable model for every kind of software business.
I never said that and I refuse to elaborate
>yes, but unfortunately this is not a viable model for every kind of software
Like what, gaymes? Do you really expect us to be disingenuous and pretend to care whether that Satanic dumpster fire of an industry gets its comeuppance? There are two reasons corpos pay for software: support, and not getting sued for piracy. It's not hard to imagine how FOSS used by actual working adults can be monetized.
If you really insist on providing special snowflake rights to people willing to pay for them, and you are the software's copyright holder, you can still dual license your software. This is what Qt does, for example.
>Like what, gaymes?
yes games would benefit a lot from such a license
>that Satanic dumpster fire of an industry
not every game dev is out to milk you from your time and money endlessly
Also another option to consider is just releasing part of your code, like a library or a class or a program that communicates with other programs in your app or whatever. So that way you don't have to deal with all this crazy stuff, and you can still show people the most interesting bits, or even the least interesting bits of your software, so that they can make compatible software or derivative software that if licensed with the gpl, you'll be able to see the software that they made with your software. but not viseversa, because you only gpl licensed part of your software, but perhaps they've made theirs in a way that causes your gpl license to infect their whole source code, or likewise they could just make their source code modular and avoid that, perhaps at the cost of performance or ease of installation or perhaps they just like it that way.
As the original proprietor, it is up to you how you distribute your code, but of course when it gets into the wild it is also up to you to protect it.
I think its not legally possible to make open source software only you can profit from because there is no license for that as far as I can tell.
>there is no license for that as far as I can tell
thus the suggestion to modify the GPL
yeah but if its no good if it doesn't hold up in the court of law.
It wouldn't be open source but you could have a lawyer write a license like that up. Or add whatever other arbitrary rules you would like more or less.
Corporate shill thread. Rape, eat, kill, and dismember all shills.
I just want free software but also be able to afford to eat, imbecile.
I think what you're looking for is an NDA. A secondary agreement separate from the usage license that the second party agrees to not redistribute or disclose your intellectual property.
This, is (I know Stallman would hate for somebody to say this) but this is technically viable in conjunction with the GPL, because you did give the user all GPL rights, but you also told the user they still may not disclose, separate from the GPL rights, which is what RedHat is now doing.
At this point you might say that using a free license here doesn't make sense in this case, and you're right, it's more of a shady legal loophole that allows RedHat to distribute effectively proprietary versions of Rhel.
So get a fucking job or write software good enough to get donations. Fucking retarded homosexual.
>write software good enough to get donations
>vomiting your previous point
thats not how the fucking world works, sometimes it does but not ALWAYS, how hard is it for you to understand?
"go get donations" is not always a viable way to make money, and getting a job means I work for someone else not that I get to have a say to direct my software. with the exception of being able to direct it AGAINST the freedom of my users.
The thing about "pay me and then get the software" vs "pay me if you liked the software" when it comes to free or open source licensed products is that historically, unless you're a major company that specifically needs to keep their nose clean, this model often just leads to higher rates of unofficial distribution. Which means lower revenue for you. Because there is just no reason why somebody can't just copy the software and if they go through unofficial channels they aren't pushing your pay button, even if done legitimately. So it actually winds up being worse. So, I would say, you should either dual license, keep it totally proprietary, or license a portion of it as GPL.
Alternatively, features like online play or online service portions are something you can easily assure you get paid for it constantly, even if you release the source code for free, because you have a way of checking the user's legitimacy, and you can always deny them service if they don't pay.
Why do you think everything is online now? Free software gets used by saas companies all the time, but resultant data is not covered under GPL. So they can just not release any of their proprietary bits to the world at all and keep it safe on their servers despite using GPL code. Technically that makes it undistributed, which means they don't need to include the option of the user accessing the source code.
>unofficial distribution
so piracy? well for me the people that want to pirate software will get their hands on it anyways source code or not. by copyrighting the source code you basically ensure that in a legal sense no such bootleg distributions can work in any meaningful sense, with the exception of lone wolfs pirating for personal use. but that's a problem with software in general.
you're a webdev aren't you? like I said before this model only works with certain kind of software like SAAS webapps. the whole point is that this doesn't work in a business sense for offline software.
Also, one thing you're definitely not realizing is that whether your software is free, open source, or proprietary in some way, running a buisness is hard. When you have paying customers then you take on the respondibility of supporting those customers. You have to advertise, have a distribution channel that you can trust you'll get payment from. If you want to keep revenue flowing anyways. Making money off of software is tricky and it's a buisness. Maybe get yourself a buisness partner is what you seem to really need. I wish I didn't have to say that, but if you're requirement is to buy food, then you're talking about making a buisness out of it, basically.
> author gets hit by a bus or goes rogue
> can't fork
> $software dies
nice free software you got there
add an exception where it would say that the code automatically becomes copyleft if the author dies.
> or goes rogue
>ultimately what the GPL was trying to protect was the freedom of users having control over their software
No, this was just an ex post facto reframing of the free software movement. If you look at Stallman's early views, he flat out thought that software should be free (as in free beer) before eventually realizing that was an untenable position.
You can use the GPL to cover most users, then sell companies an exception if they want to embed your program in proprietary software.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
dude this is what you want
check out the link.
>inb4 I want to be paid even when my code is used in open-source commercial (paid) applications
if this is the case remember that you built your application using many tools with FOSS licenses making you a hypocritical idiot
mixed up the replies
my point is simply that I don't think FOSS (in the GPL sense) is viable way to make money for every kind of software, that's all.
like if I made a browser I would fully GPL it, because the money doesn't come from selling it but rather from providing the service around it.
in the case of something like a video game this is not necessarily possible, because the video game is the product. or in the case of something like earlier versions of Photoshop when it wasn't serviced as a subscription but sold as a product.
okay but under a hypothetical license where everyone got paid every time their software/library/code was embedded into a paid app: indie game developers would have to pay millions of dollars in licenses to thousands of people before they even made a single cent.
but that's the thing, not every thing has to be licensed this way. like this hypothetical license is only for applications that can only be sold not for libraries.
okay forget libraries but think of the implications more. What determines an application that can be sold? Can a compiler be sold? Can a framework be sold? Will you end up spending more money than you make paying for the applications you embed in your own? It's a two way street.
>Can a compiler be sold? Can a framework be sold?
sure, but nothing prevents someone from making any software under any license right now, but absurdly licensed naturally software takes it self out of the market.
Like I could sell you a helloworld program for a billion dollars nothing illegal about that but who would buy it?
this hypothetical license that I suggested only ensures that both the developer and user fairly get what they want (for certain kinds of software, otherwise the GPL will suffice), the specific conditions of the software, as to how much it's sold for, or how it's sold for, or for whom it's sold for is up for the owner. and this goes back to the first point I made, you ask a billion dollars for a popsicle you're gonna end up on the streets.
meant for
So to sum up I want a license that:
gives users entitlement to modify source code for personal use, and redistribute the program freely in source code form only (can't redistribute binaries)
disallowes the owner to revoke this right, forever.
the owner can decide to set exceptions when it comes to distributions of binaries (for example I allow X organization to distribute Y version of my software in binary form because we had an agreement)
upon the owners death or disappearance the code becomes free for all (copyleft or public domain)
What you are talking about is just standard proprietary software. It used to be in some cases you'd get source code but it was only usable by the purchaser to modify their own copy. You can distribute the source, but they have no license to redistribute the source just like they have no license to redistrubute the compiled copy.
nobody gives a fuck about your static site generator
if you want to get paid, write software someone ELSE cares about, stupid
I can't get paid if you're freely allowed to redistribute my programs, retard.
The point of the GPL is to maintain some kind of public domain for code in our post-20th century hellscape of IP law.
Allowing restrictions would be antithetical in nature.
And it doesn't matter if you just try to keep away corpos like FAGMAN, IP is mostly just a heavy stick for their legal teams to wield, it's not a shield for you.
People who argue against the GPL are essentially crypto bros.
allow software to be proprietary for 5 years && until their target userbase dies down significantly (e.g. due to annual updates)
if you're not contributing or writing GPL code you might as well directly make it proprietary since otherwise someone else will make your code proprietary and profit from it and you get jack shit.
tl;dr commie, use mit
>wants to make money from his software
>doesn't want others to make money from his software
>commie
Dual licence like qt is the only way Foss/GPL is viable
>limit the user freedom to freely (as in free of charge) redistribute the software
What do you propose exactly? Putting in the licence "here's the source code, but you can't redistribute it without paying me a fee"? Okay, what happens after you pay the fee and it gets redistributed? Someone else adds a line of code, slaps his own copyright on, then becomes entitled to redistribution royalties?
no you can't distribute it period (the binaries). unless I give you a special permission under specific conditions such as only distributing for your company for example.
Okay, so you're the sole proprietor of the software and you make binaries and source code available to your customers, both of which cannot be legally redistributed. It's caled proprietary licence with EULA and "source available" model.
GPL lets you sell to redistribute and you dont have to give source to anyone who didn't pay.
once you did your part (selling the distribution of software) you no longer produce value and are not entitled to any money.
if you really wanted, you could sell the original release to a small group of people who pay much more than a single person would. these people then would try to distribute and shill your release to make money off of initial downloads.
>GPL lets you sell to redistribute and you dont have to give source to anyone who didn't pay.
Yeah, but then only one payment needs to be made and once the code gets the RHEL clone treatment (i.e. trademarks are stripped) it becomes legal for someone else to share it, not to mention charge money for it. This is precisely what OP doesn't want.
why should they be paid for redistribution they didn't facilitate or even pay for in internet load / physical media. just because they wrote it one day?
It's not so much a case of why they should be paid for redistribution, it's just that the GPL doesn't prohibit taking code that you didn't write and charging money for redistribution, so people are welcome to try and make money this way. There's some pajeet who has a website that hosts a collection of open source software for like 2 dollars each. Pretty sure the Microsoft Store has done something similar in the past.
why not? i can sell books i didn't write and make money.
I wasn't making a case for why or why not. I was just saying how it is.
you can sell the physical copies that you own.
the issue with software is that you can sell infinite copies. so you can bankrupt the original owner.
how the hell does that bankrupt anyone?
physical copies of books can also in theory be resold a near infinite number of times. neither the existence of 2nd hand books, nor the existence of redistributed copies of software, prevents people from being able to buy from the original source, rather than a redistributor.
and people will buy the original book, because 2nd books have like a 20% chance of smelling like a smoker or having shit written in them.
Cuck license
the only domain "users must have control over their software" axiom true is gaslit freetard minds. your starting point is wrong.