Monetizing open-source is problematic

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by webmaven on Sunday May 23, 2021 @05:04PM (#27258584)

> I don't think there's a single OSS license that'd force corps to pony up. Too restrictive terms and they'll simply go looking elsewhere.

There is no such license, and there can't be. Just as a license that prohibits use by the military can't be open source, neither can a license that prohibits use by, or requires payment from, corporations.

Dual licensing under GPL (or AGPL) and a commercial license is the closest you'll get, and it relies on the aversion many corporations have to the GPL, rather than adding restrictions per-se.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Monetizing open-source is problematic by ignoramous on Monday May 24, 2021 @03:29AM (#27261849)

Mongo did just that (AGPL or custom license), but they moved to create SSPL; for some reason it didn't work out for them?

Redis and Elastic tried something Frankenstein by mixing Apache and custom license code in the same repo, which spooked them and the community for good measure, with Elastic, later, notoriously doubling-down on "open" with SSPL.

Of all the source-available licenses, I like BSL by MariaDB, better.

[ Parent | on HN ]