
Supported Source – Great Software Projects Deserve Great Support - thibaut_barrere
https://supportedsource.org
======
JoshTriplett
> Our projects charge for licenses, while keeping the source code public, like
> open source.

Except for being completely incompatible with both the Open Source Definition
and Free Software definition, incompatible with any copyleft license, and
otherwise incompatible with the entire FOSS ecosystem.

OSD #5 and DFSG #6 specifically prohibit restrictions on commercial/business
use, as does the FSF's Free Software Definition ('“Free software” does not
mean “noncommercial”.')

I've seen many attempts at this come and go, and they all have this same
fundamental problem.

~~~
yup123
I agree, however we should support projects like this, i think many engineers
including myself dream of being able to make a living via open-source.

~~~
davexunit
But if you do this "supported source" thing, you wouldn't be making a living
off of open source, you'd be making a living off of proprietary software,
which changes nothing.

~~~
mwcampbell
But at least the source would be available, so it would have some of the
advantages of open source.

~~~
davexunit
But no one could do anything with it. It completely negates what open source
is about.

~~~
patcon
Couldn't there theoretically be a license that allows open source projects to
use it and remix it, but business usage must be sub-licensed? There are some
downsides, but I'd be willing to consider that if it meant more sustainable
funding sources for those contributing the most to maintenance.

~~~
nickpsecurity
"Couldn't there theoretically be a license that allows open source projects to
use it and remix it, but business usage must be sub-licensed? "

Yes. I think it's possible. I've proposed one here before that had all the
advantages of FOSS, including remixes, so long as originator or owner of
copyright continued getting paid. The main, remaining risk was rates getting
jacked up due to inability to move off the product. An upper limit can be put
into the license itself or terms fixed per version w/ perpetual license for
that version. BSD or Apache licensed code could be integrated into such
projects with contributions going to them under their license if commercial
one merely interfaced with OSS subsystem. Finally, there's potential for time
limits on how long a release stays proprietary with it going OSS after a
period of time.

So, quite a few models can work. It should be noted that FOSS largely didn't
work in terms of making good money or long-term maintenance of the software.
Those that do are uncommon or rare. Easy with proprietary, shared-source
software since you get paid if they really want it. :)

~~~
serge2k
> Yes. I think it's possible

I think the point is that it would break license compatibility. You can't have
other projects use it without either giving it away (in which case your own
commercial use is broken) or having them switch to your license (their desires
are broken).

~~~
nickpsecurity
You mean FOSS projects desire to use it under their terms. That's a subset of
potential users and contributors. Commercial users can license it. FOSS might
also use it as an optional, paid component (eg plugin). They sort of do
already with Open Core, Paid Extras model. These options won't be popular
among FOSS-only types but commercial users might be fine with extensible,
source-included software. Even Microsoft had huge community of developers
supplying code for stuff depending on their proprietary software.

------
jordigh
Don't give away your free software and open source software either.

    
    
        Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise 
        funds for development. Don't waste it!
    

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html)

Just because it's free doesn't mean you have to put it on a public server for
anyone to download. It's perfectly within the definitions of the open source
and free software licenses to only distribute the software to paying
customers.

Or maybe it's impossible to do this now because the internet has made it
trivial to redistribute software, I don't know.

~~~
fundamental
Have you seen _any_ projects successfully selling the source code of a fully
open source application/library and making a non-trivial amount?

I've seen some projects which receive some funding by charging for compiled
binaries, but that revenue is for the additional service of
compiling/supporting the use of pre-compiled binaries IMO.

~~~
jordigh
No, but I have not seen anyone try either in a long time, not since Emacs
source code used to cost 100 dollars. There are companies like Red Hat which
charge you money for access to their repos, but I suppose you would argue that
they're charging for building the binaries too.

Everyone nowadays just puts up all of their source code online without asking
money for it. Nobody even tries to sell it. I also think perhaps buying
software in general is becoming a bit of an outdated idea. Everyone wants to
sell subscriptions now.

------
andrewchambers
Tbh, I find some of the complaints in this thread about it not being totally
free irritating. When food, houses and healthcare are all free, maybe all code
can be free too. (But i don't think a society has ever succeeded by doing
that.)

I personally don't have a problem with a license that allows a user to modify
source code, and run modified source code, but only after paying a fee. It
seems to me DOOM mods work like this already, the code is free, but the game
resources like textures etc can only be used after paying for a license. Id
software gets paid, people can hack all day on the game, seems like win win to
me.

~~~
nixos
The problem is that it doesn't help.

Commercial open source tends to be done for two reasons:

1\. Common goal development. Several companies needs a UNIX. Rather than do
all the development themselves, they work together. That's how Linux works.
2\. Backup if original company's strategic goals move from your goal.

Here, neither work as you can't cooperate with others due to licensing issues.

~~~
andrewchambers
If the license doesn't allow applying or distributing third party patches I
would be annoyed. If it allows it provided each party has paid for a license I
would be happy.

~~~
jrpt
It says right here,
[https://supportedsource.org/definition](https://supportedsource.org/definition)
"Modifications. The license must permit modifications to the source code."

But you also can't just take parts of the code and redistribute it for free,
because "Restricted Uses. The license should include restricted uses, such as
disallowing resale or sublicensing."

The point isn't to prevent people from customizing their use of the software.
The point is to create a system where developers get paid and projects are
financially sustainable, instead of being abandoned or barely maintained.

~~~
nixos
> The point isn't to prevent people from customizing their use of the
> software. The point is to create a system where developers get paid and
> projects are financially sustainable, instead of being abandoned or barely
> maintained.

The problem is that's actually one of the main powers of Open Source - the
ability to fork it past the desires of upstream.

For example, I use Windows, which is "supported source". OK. Microsoft decides
to put spyware. Now I need to rip it out. OK. Did so.

Now, one day later, Windows gets updated.

I have to go through the code again.

If it would be "Open Source", I'd just fork it. But now, I can't even share
modifications (is it a derivative work?).Now _every user_ would have to go
through the code, find the privacy violations, and re-compile it.

Also, what happens Microsoft get's fed up and fully closes source (no more
updates to "Supported Source", and they drop out of the program)? Each user
has to keep up his version of Windows?

Not too useful.

If you think about it, how are there commercial communities around
Apache/MIT/BSD?

Because no one wants to upkeep his fork, so they contribute code back so
others can help maintain it.

That freedom can only be maintained by the ability to fork.

------
jordigh
From the FAQ:

> _Open source is public source that 's monetarily free_

This isn't really true, as you really can charge for free software as much as
you want, but you also can't forbid people from redistributing it without
paying for it. This is why you can't download from RedHat's repos without
paying for access, but also why CentOS can exist. (I have also heard that
RedHat threatens to terminate your access if you exercise your redistribution
rights, but I am not sure this is true.)

I guess "supported source" is a statement that there is only room for one Red
Hat in this world, and everyone else must restrict redistribution.

------
leonnoel
Is there a name for companies that release their code under an actual free
license, but charge for other things like support? Companies that come to mind
are flynn.io or sidekiq.org (both of which were recently on the front-page).

~~~
danielsiders
Flynn co-founder here.

Great question. We just consider ourselves to be a normal company that happens
to build open source tools. We also try to make money in ways that don't
interfere with the open nature of what we build.

There are lots of different kinds of companies whose engineers primarily work
on open source projects. In most cases where their core "product" is an open
source technology they also sell commercial support, usually to large
companies who need an SLA. Others (like us) sell managed services as well.

We made the decision before we started the company to make anything we ever
asked users to run on their own machines permissively licensed open source and
just be careful with our trademark (like Mozilla is[1]). That leaves the door
open for closed-source SaaS in the future but gives our users (and investors)
a clear set of expectations about how and what we'll build.

I think it's important for companies to be as clear as possible about how and
why they license their code, what choices they'll make in the future, and what
happens when the company changes hands. It would be great to see something
like an "open source pledge" where founders/the company could contractually
commit to either a final open source release before closing (like Parse
did[2]) or staying open after being acquired (like Sun didn't after being
acquired by Oracle [3]).

[1] [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/trademarks/policy/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/trademarks/policy/) [2]
[http://blog.parse.com/announcements/introducing-parse-
server...](http://blog.parse.com/announcements/introducing-parse-server-and-
the-database-migration-tool/) [3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_(operating_system)#Pos...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_\(operating_system\)#Post-
Oracle_closed_source_.28Solaris_10_after_March_2010.2C_and_Solaris_11_.282011_and_later.29.29)

edit: We tend to avoid calling ourselves an "open source company" which can
get confused with the "open company" movement[4].

[4] [http://www.opencompany.org/](http://www.opencompany.org/)

------
pritambaral
One line summary: DRM-free, licensed-for-commercial-use, source code.

I like the idea, strongly. But I _am_ a bit apprehensive about how the
projects that sign up for this may exploit it; especially considering how some
projects put up a facade of being open while important bits and portions
remain closed.

On the other hand, if such a project becomes used to being paid for its
visible-source bits, and paid a bit more for the hidden-source bits, I suspect
they'd see little incentive to remain on the Supported Source platform and
instead move entirely to hidden-source. "They're paying for it anyway. Why
give away our code for cheaper, when we can keep it and charge more!"

------
sjellis
We need a better funding model for Open Source than a relatively small number
of tech companies effectively paying everybody else's bills, but I don't think
that this is it.

Other people have talked about the developer side, but not-quite Open Source
doesn't necessarily work for users, either. Open Source is often less about
money than convenience: the difference between totally free and $1 is
sometimes all the difference. If Product A is FOSS under a OSI-approved
license you can use it _everywhere_ : you can try it out at home and on
personal projects, install it on your machines at work, perhaps try and get
your company to standardize on it, and work with third-party services that use
exactly the same software. Once there's a form or a fee then there's meetings,
and paperwork, and hassle.

------
gtirloni
_Who_ is "Supported Source" ? Domain is behind privacy wall, no mention of a
formal company/foundation name, etc.

Looks just like an intermediary to sell licenses.

------
gregmac
> The Supported Source License is comparable to a license you'd typically find
> with proprietary software. What makes a project Supported Source, instead of
> closed proprietary software, is that the code is online, open to pull
> requests, and there's a free trial.

Can anyone explain how pull requests would work in this situation?

Does part of the pull request sign the contribution over to the original
license holder? How iron-clad is that? I can just imagine how much legal
headache that could cause if a contributor decided that they owned part of the
software.

I'm also curious about accepting pull requests in this way. Implicitly, the
project owner takes over responsibility. In this respect, regular open source
projects benefit from a lack of "official" support to begin with: if the PR
does something that causes a complete breakage at some point, it's considered
par for the course and fixed in due time. If however, something breaks with
commercial software, there is a pretty high burden on the vendor to fix it.

I have worked in commercial software for years. It's a constant struggle as it
is to say No to feature requests (for various reasons: not worthwhile, very
hard to support, going in opposite direction of roadmap, etc). The worst are
from the technical customers who say things like "why don't you just.." but
don't understand the other ways the software is used (maybe by their
competitors) with which their change is incompatible.

I imagine it would be an order of magnitude harder to say No to a full fledged
pull request, and there would be immense pressure to accept it, since after
all, the work is already done.. except that also means taking on the burden of
maintaining and supporting it.

Anyone have experience accepting contributions from customers for commercial
software?

~~~
forsaken
I imagine it would work like a CLA in a lot of company sponsored open source.
You retain copyright, but allow the owner to distribute it under their
specified license terms. Or you could have a CLA that actually assigns
copyright.

The ongoing maintenance of the contribution is definitely an interesting
question. That is the same with classic OSS projects too, though. I know a
number of projects that are going towards making a pluggable core with plugins
maintained externally to reduce this burden.

------
RKoutnik
Interesting idea, though explaining the complications of licensing may cause
problems when it comes to marketing.

I've had a related idea for a while, setting up SaaS for FOSS maintainers to
charge for a SLA (license/source is still open, corps essentially have some
security that the project won't be abandoned). Is there anything out there
like that?

~~~
jordigh
Not quite with a SLA, but there's Bountysource:

[https://www.bountysource.com/](https://www.bountysource.com/)

------
shmerl
Bad idea when it's presented as a substitute for FOSS. You can charge for
support of FOSS based products as well.

~~~
the_hoser
I agree that it shouldn't be called FOSS, but let's stop kidding ourselves
about the 'charge for support' model. Few kinds of software require the kind
of support that would keep a single developer off the street. Most of the
types that do can rarely be supported by a single developer.

I like the idea of a paid-source licensing program. I just don't know how it
could work, long-term.

~~~
JoshTriplett
One model that does work quite well: release code under a copyleft license,
and charge for licenses/exceptions that allow linking to proprietary software.

Next time you're thinking of releasing some code under an all-permissive
license, consider using a copyleft license instead, which leaves you with
options in the future.

~~~
Ghostium
The other option would be open core (crippled open source). However, I dislike
both, I still would prefer supported source as the goal is more clear.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I dislike the "open core" model as well. However, I don't see anything wrong
with the copyleft, "release your source too or pay us" model. That provides
very similar results: fellow developers can collaborate on the source, and
companies building something they don't want to share can pay for an
alternative license/exception so they don't have to. But instead of using a
proprietary license to do so, that model uses a standard FOSS license, and
works with the rest of the FOSS ecosystem.

~~~
Ghostium
Copyleft only affects changes to the original work. Usage with proprietary
software is not affected.

------
lifeisstillgood
Ok crazy idea but we do need to solve this OSS problem somehow.

My personal view is that governments should take the lead in paying for
development of OSS
([http://www.oss4gov.org/manifesto](http://www.oss4gov.org/manifesto) \- full
disclosure I run this site (badly))

------
davexunit
This site is a joke. It misunderstands what open source is, says it's "like"
open source despite being completely incompatible. Open source isn't just
about being able to _view_ the source, it's about being able to redistribute
it, modify it, and distribute those modifications.

------
mikekchar
This is such a political topic that I know I should keep my mouth shut. But,
I've had this brewing in my head for a long time and now's as good a time as
any to put it down in digital ink.

I remember seeing an interview with Karl Lagerfeld. As many people know, there
is no copyright on fashion designs. That means that when he makes a design and
sells it, virtually the next day there are knockoffs in the market. They asked
him if this upset him. He said (and I paraphrase), "No. People who would buy
those knockoffs are not my customers".

In other words, if you don't care about the Karl Lagerfeld brand, or if you
don't have enough money to afford his brand, you might buy a knock off bag.
This doesn't really affect his sales because you wouldn't have bought his bag
anyway. Similarly, people who want to buy his bag, will not buy a knockoff --
no matter how cheap it is. _They_ are his customers.

In the same way, as a software author, it is not actually difficult to get
paid for free software. The main thing is you have to ask to get paid. If you
are the author of a major piece of software, people will pay you for that
work. Those people are your customers.

The main thing (very much like fashion) is that only some software will
attract paying customers. This isn't really a problem with the license. As a
programmer, locking your customers in so that they can only turn to you for
help is not necessarily going to increase your sales. What you really need is
exposure. You need to be popular. This is where open source works well.

With open source, you have a very low barrier of entry for your potential
customers. They also have a very low risk profile. They can use your code, or
even parts of your code and if it doesn't work out, they can replace it
cheaply. Again, as a programmer without access to lots of marketing money to
bring in customers, I think this is going to help you out a lot better than
locking your customers in to your platform.

The key here is that once you have exposure and your project is popular, then
you can ask your customers to pay for new work. Experience has shown that
people who can afford to pay, and who value your work will actually pay. Just
like the fashion industry.

Where things diverge is when you are _not_ a programmer. Let's say, you do not
want to make money from writing code. Instead you want to make money from code
as an asset. You have a bunch of source code that is already written and you
want to treat it like it was a bushel of apples (err... a kind of endless
bushel of apples, since you can sell it over and over again). In that case,
you absolutely do _not_ want to allow competition -- because anybody can sell
a bushel of apples (endless bushel's of apples are especially appealing, it
seems).

So, if you are saying to yourself, "How do I get paid for writing free
software", I _really_ don't think this is going to work (especially since it
isn't free software!) You are _raising_ the barrier to entry for your
customers. This is going to make your project _less_ attractive, not more. The
only people this can potentially help are non-programmers who want to reduce
competition with their proprietary software.

~~~
fundamental
I'd say there's a few issues with framing the problem this way. Project
popularity and exposure does not necessarily correlate with funds raised. Many
people within the communities that a piece of software is popular within are
not interested in funding it as up to that point the expectation for zero cost
software has been generated.

When the change to a funding model happens, who is specifying what is being
worked on? who is benefiting from the new work? who would be expected to pay?
What about backlash from the change in how the project evolves?

In fashion people expect to pay for things and pay quite a lot to get what
they consider to be quality. Do you think a similar attitude exists in the
average user of open source software?

As for the tail of your post, I'm confused. Are you trying to argue that the
code is what is of value here or are you trying to argue that the work the
developer can put into it is valuable? (from a funding standpoint)

------
tsg94
I love the idea and hope it succeeds. The problem is that programmers are
cheap and won't pay for open source software.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I'll happily pay for Open Source software, and have done so many times. This
isn't Open Source, though.

~~~
ffggvv
I'm curious, which ones?

~~~
JoshTriplett
I've donated to half a dozen FOSS projects or organizations, and to a couple
of individual FOSS developers. For two of those, I provide monthly donations,
for more than the typical cost of a proprietary software license. I've paid
for crowdfunding projects whose result got released as FOSS. I've also helped
arrange corporate donations to FOSS projects.

------
edoceo
It's similar to how M$ does their "open" source licenses

