Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zephyreon 404 days ago
Asked and answered but for the sake of discourse, what is the best model/structure for open source projects? Every OSS project that reaches critical mass seems to believe changing the license to something source-available is the only option. Is it or isn’t it? Why or why not? Does it make sense to go with a different OSS license? If it does, which license would you recommend, and in what case(s)?
3 comments
DetroitThrow 404 days ago
>Every OSS project that reaches critical mass seems to believe changing the license to something source-available is the only option.

Far from, these projects are the exceptions not the norm imo. Even the ones that grow past hobbyist torch-passing. Usually the impetus for changing license involves a business who finds themselves in charge of very well-used projects that, despite their popularity, isn't all that lucrative to be the ward of.

So, I think there are better models than using permissive OSS as the license for the first few years of a project and then switching it out from underneath contributors/users.

From a purely business perspective, it seems silly to acquire a customer base who wants _free_ and agree to provide it, then rug pull them - and expect the inertia from the initial goodwill can carry the business for more than a few years. I've seen dozens of software businesses and projects die this way at this point, so I'm not surprised, even if the juice is only temporary it's seems well worth the squeeze for enough of these entities.

link
pabs3 404 days ago
Do you mean funding model? I agree with the Ladybird developers, the best model is to accept donations and other no-strings-attached funding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YM7pDMLvr4

link
zephyreon 404 days ago
Moreso the structure of an OSS project, which includes the funding model. The license choice is arguably one of the most important decisions yet people seem to get bitten by it quite often in my view.
link
pabs3 404 days ago
Depends on your goals, but I would say the default should be AGPLv3 without CLA, funded by donations and maybe sponsorship and other no-strings-attached sources, with the money going into a non-profit foundation, and the trademarks, domains and other assets owned by the foundation, and the copyrights owned by individual contributors.

https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source...

link
pjmlp 404 days ago
Except that isn't sustainable as a business, try to get a mortgage with such model.

Hence I much rather go for dual license approach.

link
pjmlp 404 days ago
Dual licence.

Downstream should be under the same conditions they are willing to support upstream.

link