
Ask HN: Can you run a business "selling" an open source app? - vanilla-almond
It seems surprisingly difficult.<p>Some possible options:<p><i>Dual licencing</i>: a FOSS (free and open-source software) licence (GPL 3) for your app, or a commercial licence if you want to make source code modifications but don&#x27;t want to release your changes publicly.<p><i>Open core</i>: a FOSS or OSS licence for core or base functionality in your app. A closed-source layer on top of the core with additional features available to purchase.<p><i>Charge for support</i>: a FOSS or OSS licence for your app, and the option to purchase support.<p><i>Charge for distribution of your app</i>: a FOSS licence for your app, but charge users to obtain the source code. This is what the GNU foundation recommends but seems completely impractical today given the plethora of free hosting options.<p>What&#x27;s missing? A simple licence that lets you publish your app with source code but stipulates that if you use it for commercial purposes, you must pay a fee. The source code remains open forever. I realise this would violate the principle of OSS which states that source code should not be charged for, but if you wanted to sell an app to customers and openly publish the source code, this is the most attractive option. It&#x27;s also the option that doesn&#x27;t exist. (Crazy?)<p>Which of the above options would you pick if you wanted to &quot;sell&quot; an open source app?<p>Edit to add: here is the Wikipedia page on business models for open source. It seems quite crazy that the option to charge for commercial use simply doesn&#x27;t exist: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Business_models_for_open-source_software
======
M_Bakhtiari
>A simple licence that lets you publish your app with source code but
stipulates that if you use it for commercial purposes, you must pay a fee. The
source code remains open forever. I realise this would violate the principle
of OSS which states that source code should not be charged for

Who states this? It would violate the principle all right, but for completely
different reasons (not being able to restrict purpose of use) but you can
charge a gorillion to obtain source if that's what you want.

>It's also the option that doesn't exist. (Crazy?)

Why is it crazy when it contradicts the entire reason for the existance of
FOSS?

The other problem with your idea is that it's very difficult to accurately
define "commercial use". Enjoy paying all those lawyers you need to draft your
commercial-restricted EULA.

