Ask HN: What licenses avoid AWS-like predators while preserving OSS spirit?

4 pointsdevelatio2y ago4 comments

I'm currently working on a project (SaaS) that I intend to release on GitHub. I want the code to be freely available for anybody to read and contribute. I also want companies to be able to freely (both "as in beer" and "as in speech") use it ("use" as in "fulfil their own needs") without having any legal doubts / problems (a-la GPL / AGPL viral licenses). Last, but not least important, I want to avoid AWS-like predators from taking the project, shoving the "Elastic" prefix, hosting it and profiting from my work (making it extremely difficult for me to be able to compete and economically benefit from my own work).

I have been reading the terms and conditions of several licenses, including the Commons Clause, AGPL, BUSL, etc... and they seem to be designed for that purpose (with more or less restrictions), but judging by the reactions of people commenting (here and other places on the internet) about these licenses, I fear that using any of these will automatically attract hate and disdain to my project, dooming it from day 1.

Is there a license that I can use to achieve all this? Or is this the typical situation in which I must pick 2 out of 3?

4 pointsdevelatio2y ago4 comments

Is there a license that I can use to achieve all this? Or is this the typical situation in which I must pick 2 out of 3?

4 comments

4 comments · 4 top-level

ThrowawayR22y ago

The open source-adjacent licenses such as BUSL are fine as long as you don't attempt to tout your product as actually being free software or open source. That would be fraudulent.

Make it clear that you are producing another proprietary product for which you expect to get paid and with source availability as a bonus, which is what open-source adjacent licenses like BUSL are, and the so-called "haters" will not bother you because you're not attempting to intrude on their territory.

eesmith2y ago

Pick one of the FOSS-adjacent ones, ignore the haters.

Even if you pick a real FOSS license like the AGPL you'll still get people pressuring you to switch to MIT/BSD. Because then they'll use your project, and that's what you want, right? You're into open source to help others, and "build community" (blech), right?

Thing is, nearly all want to use your project, without compensation, and without obligations.

samcat1162y ago

> Last, but not least important, I want to avoid AWS-like predators from taking the project, shoving the "Elastic" prefix, hosting it and profiting from my work (making it extremely difficult for me to be able to compete and economically benefit from my own work).

> I fear that using any of these will automatically attract hate and disdain to my project, dooming it from day 1.

A lot of people here will feel that way unless your project is MIT/GPL/a blessed OSI license from the start. Its basically impossible to please them unless you do this, so you need to chose one or the other here. I will say a lot of the distain is due to projects changing their licenses later on (aka a rug pull), rather than from the start.

theamk2y ago

I think "want companies to freely use" and "avoid AWS-like predator" rules are mutually incompatible. Those licenses don't just prevent "AWS-like predator", they prevent anyone else from selling software services.

So from consumer point of view, they would avoid CC/BUSL/etc.. SaaS because it has a severe lock-in issue - there is a single supplier (you) and if you suddenly decide to increase your prices 10x, they have to pay anyway (or start hiring devops people to maintain private instance). Unless the product is much better than open-source alternatives, it's easier to just go to real open-source software, so that if one SaaS provider goes bad, you can switch to a different one.

And from the developer/contributor point of view, they would avoid CC/BUSL/etc.. software because contributing there is like contributing to commercial software - you cannot benefit from your own efforts. For example back in the college, my friend paid me to develop interactive website for their "tutor studio" (a dozen of their friends). Good thing all software I used was open source.. had I used any Common Clause software, I would not be able to receive money for it.

(Additionally, a lot of companies would not mind selling themselves to AWS or Microsoft for a ton of money. And incorporating a product with anti-AWS provision will make this harder.)

So I agree with others: be fair, and openly state from day 1 that your product is a commercial one, with source-available license. There are tons of commercial products on HN and there is no hate or disdain if they don't call themselves "open source"

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse