Re:Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commerc...
by pjc50 on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @10:03AM
(#25847191)
This is fine if there are no other contributors, but if you're switching to a closed license to get paid, you need to pay all the contributors to make it "fair".
Re:Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commerc...
by mooreds on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @03:21PM
(#25851447)
I think that is true, unless everyone has signed an agreement specifying that such a switch is ok and that they give up all the rights to their code. Contracts are contracts.
I have no idea if the contributors to elastic have done this, however.
Re:Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commerc...
by cheph on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @09:43AM
(#25846972)
> That made me think. We don't object all that much when people change prices for their software; we realize that it is just an experiment with what the market will bear.
Why would we though? What entitles you to the fruits of someone else's labour? Do you object much when someone charges prices for food, cellphones, cars? This just does not make sense. Where does this implicit entitlement to someone else's work come from?
That made me think. We don't object all that much when people change prices for their software; we realize that it is just an experiment with what the market will bear.
I feel like the source code license is becoming something similar (as long as you own all the code). Apache2 for mass adoption, GPL for less adoption, but some more control, dual licensing for more flexibility, commercial only licensing if you want to maintain total control.
It is common for someone to start out pricing something low to see if they can get adoption and then increasing prices as people see more value. Could the same thing happen with licenses: start with Apache2, then change to one of the more restrictive models?