Comment by pasc1878
1 day ago
ANd that gets rather looked on here as the authors being deceitful and not really Open Source doing a bait and switch.
1 day ago
ANd that gets rather looked on here as the authors being deceitful and not really Open Source doing a bait and switch.
I've been working on a software package I'm hoping to release in a few months... I'm really torn on either split FLOSS with commercial extensions, or just going fully private... I was planning on a pretty generous free tier, but hoping to make a bit on the side from commercial customers.
It's a bit of a niche as it is, so that's going to be rough in any kind of pricing model, as a large part of that niche is either homebrew types and the other commercial industry that will likely require some more integrations and customization.
You could dual license as well, so it’s GPL or AGPL for personal, OSS, or academic use, but requires a paid for commercial license for commercial use.
I suggest GPL or AGPL because their copyleft clauses make them hostile towards platform providers who might otherwise seek to profit from your work without paying.
Platform providers can take (A)GPL code as-is and totally profit from it without paying.
As long as they keep releasing sources of their own modifications -if they ever do any-, the rest is fair play.
2 replies →
It would be dual license effectively... the base version AGPL and the Commercial version with additional functionality. Though I'd considered BSL and alternatives... and as mentioned, just closed/commercial only.