|
|
|
|
|
|
by Eliah_Lakhin
723 days ago
|
|
|
> It's 5 thousand after you've made 200 thousand though? That's correct. The license agreement requires purchasing a commercial license per product if it reaches a certain revenue threshold. I believe this price should be feasible for a business, and this restriction is not unfair for regular programmers either. To clarify, the license needs to be renewed annually to continue receiving new versions from me. Additionally, I reserve the right to change the price in the future. However, license renewal is not a strict obligation. You can continue using the previous versions if you buy the license at least once. The idea is to replace the donation model widespread in typical OSS projects with a formal obligation to purchase a license. I believe this approach more accurately expresses what the authors really want in exchange for their labor. |
|
|
1. Charge money for the software
2. Charge money to help people implement/use the software
3. Leverage the experience and credibility gained to get a company to hire you or sell consulting services
4. Hope that people give you money for the software out of the goodness of their heart
Opting for an MIT license pretty much ensures that the software will only make money for you indirectly via option 3, and maybe you'll get a trickle via option 4. There are numerous examples of people making popular OSS that become frustrated with companies that are using their software to make money, and they aren't getting anything for it. They have to work for other people for money despite having made software that generates lots of value. If you want to ensure that if your software creates substantial value, you get some of it, you need a license like yours.
I think there is a strong argument that if you want to get paid for your software, you simply shouldn't make it any flavor of source-available. A company may actually be more willing to buy software that is closed source than open source, because the closed-source software is simply perceived as being more valuable. Of course, as an engineer, I love that the source code is available.