[bullen]

We already discussed this in an earlier thread, and however bad this looks it's better than my own license.

Here it's clear, you can either use the code without money involved and then you have MIT (+ show logo and some example code is still mine).

If you want money then you have to share some of it.

[dkersten]

While I get and support the intent, I don't like this usage of the name of the MIT license. I personally like the license because it tells me at a glance that I can use it for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, as long as the copyright and license is included and that there is no warranty. That's it, no complications, no other demands, no "if it makes X money or not", just I include the copyright and license terms and that's it, I can use the software whichever way I like.

Your license is not that. You have extra conditions that add complexity. I can no longer go "oh like MIT" and immediately use it for any purpose, because you require extras especially if I were to make money. That seems completely against the spirit of the simplicity of the MIT license which says you can do whatever you like, commercial or otherwise, as long as the copyright and license are included.

I think you should make your own license that includes the text of the MIT license, except removing the irrelevant parts (ie the commercial aspects include a caveat about requiring payment). You can still have a separate line of text explaining that the license is like the MIT license but with XYZ changes (basically the text you have now). But the license is not the MIT license and you should therefore have a separate license text that spells it out exactly. Not "its this, except scratch half of it because these additional terms override a good chunk of it".

[bullen]

Ok, I agree but then I also have less time to work on real things and honestly I feel the whole legal/money part of our civilization is a huge waste of time in the face of energy problems that can't go away (2nd law of thermodynamics and sunlight + photosyntesis) and that my platform tries to help with elegantly by being the most efficient solution for MMO networking.

I'm also sad that nobody has solved this license problem yet, there is obviously a need for it. Sometimes time solves all problems though, so I probably just have to wait a while and somebody makes exactly the right license.

But I'm going to allocate some time if somebody who is willing to pay approaches me with the same concerns (it's actually why I switched to MIT in the first place, Unreal does not allow you to use client plugins that are LGPL)...

Small steps, we'll get there!

[dkersten]

> then I also have less time to work on real things

What? To keep your existing license you copy the text of the MIT license, add the statement about requiring a logo and remove the parts about being able to use the code commercially, and add an extra paragraph that has the text you already have: to use commercially you have to sponsor. It’s not about changing your terms, it’s about being clear about what license applies. Hybrid with MIT and other implies that the MIT license somehow applies yet it does not since your “other” invalidates a chunk of what the MIT license allows. Just removing those bits and not calling it MIT is enough.

If that significantly cuts into your time to do other stuff then I don’t know what to say.

> if somebody who is willing to pay approaches me with the same concerns

I’m not concerned about the license per se. It wouldn’t stop me from paying if I wanted to use your software. It’s just that to everyone looking, before even evaluating it, you’re sending a dishonest message, that somehow the MIT license applies when it clearly does not.

I would create a license.txt file that contains a copy of the MIT license text with the commercial use phrasing removed, the need for displaying logo added a second paragraph before the warranty disclaimer stating that you may use the software commercially so long as you sponsor (same text you already have). Then I would link it from the readme with an explanation: proprietary license that is similar to the MIT license except with the conditions of logo and for commercial use requiring sponsorship (existing text more or less). Clear, simple and should take you no more than ten minutes to fix.

My objection is that you are claiming it’s under MIT license and using the MIT licenses name recognition, while applying changes that very clearly make it not MIT license at all.

[bullen]

I didn't know how small the MIT license was!!!

"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:"

Became

"Permission is hereby granted, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to use the Software, including the rights to copy, modify, merge, publish and/or distribute the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:"

And then I list the stuff...

1) You have to show the logo on startup.

2) You have to sponsor the fuse tier on gumroad while you are using the Software, or any derived Software, commercially:

https://tinspin.gumroad.com/l/xwluh

3) The .html and graphics are proprietary examples except the javascript in play.html

4) The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

it feels completely meaningless to put it that way... laws are really the most superficial waste of time, it only took 5 minutes to edit but it's a lifetime of trouble!

But thanks I guess, if it works... but you only know that later... possibly eons later!

[dkersten]

Great, that's all I wanted. I hope it didn't take you more than a few minutes to do.

> I didn't know how small the MIT license was!!!

This is kind of a problem, before you were saying its like the MIT license but if you didn't know how small it was, you couldn't have read it, so...

Anyway, no point in beating a dead horse, you have corrected the issue I had, so thank you!

> laws are really the most superficial waste of time

Until you need them, at least.

In any case, good luck with your project. It does technically look very interesting.

[smw]

I respect your right to license you product however you want, but please don't call that open source.

[Spivak]

Requiring attribution doesn’t make something not open source. At best this means that the example code isn’t open source.

[account42]

Requiring attribution is not the problem, but restricting commercial use makes this not an open source license.

[bullen]

Open-source also means the source is open, what you are looking for is free and honestly nothing is free... if you have a better term I'm open for suggestions.

But really open-source (as in free) is the misnomer here, it should be called free open-source, or FOSS as some correctly name it.

[e12e]

That battle has been fought already, and the accepted term is "source available", not "open source". (And gnu adds Free or "libre" software, which is software licence in a way that tries to ensure the "four freedoms" for all downstream users of software - such as freedom zero - the right to run software (no need for eg: cryptographic signature/trusted software - without a way for the user to define trust).

[bullen]

Ok, fixed it elsewhere and in my brain... :/ Thx! Can't edit the comment though.

[Plasmoid]

I've seen these referred to as "Source-available licenses". This would cover things like Mongo's SSPL.

The bare reality is that it's just a commercial license.

[dragonwriter]

> FOSS

FOSS or F/OSS is a combination of Free (as defined by the FSF) and Open Source (as defined by the OSI) (the last S is Software), which recognizes that the two terms, while they come from groups with different ideological motivations, refer to approximately the same substantive licensing features and almost without exception the same set of licenses.

[hamburglar]

Personally, while I appreciate the difference from a promotion-of-FOSS point of view, I find it obnoxious that FOSS idealists think they can dictate the usage of the generic phrase “open source” and start these kinds of arguments in threads where non-completely-free software whose source is open comes up. We haven’t all agreed on your terminology, and the argument is not “settled” except in the minds of the folks who think everyone should be on board with making this purity distinction. Some people find the distinction uninteresting and don’t need to bother themselves with the ideological argument or agree to its terminology. And trying to be the arbiters of language is not a good look for the “information wants to be free” crowd.

[gmfawcett]

> I find it obnoxious that FOSS idealists think they can dictate the usage of the generic phrase “open source”

Since when was "open source" generic? These obnoxious idealists you're complaining about are the people who invented the term in the first place.

[hamburglar]

Since the several decades before a few people decided to co-opt it for strategic political reasons. You apparently don’t remember the arguments over whether they should be called “free software” or “open source.” Both terms were already in use. I grew up downloading shareware, some of which was open source and some of which was not. It almost universally came with a limited use license and a request for some money if you used it. This is how Unix started too. Limited license with open source code. You can send your changes back to us but you can’t distribute them.

[bullen]

I agree, but let's give them "source available" and maybe they'll be more inclined to help?

We all need to get out of the current legal/monetary system soon enough.

[hamburglar]

You give ‘em whatever you want. :) I think I’ll publish my next open source project with a license that permits no use whatsoever. Code provided for entertainment purposes only.