Open but please don’t clone

From a recent discussion on licensing, the things that the developer wanted were as follows:

  1. not to have another copy in the Chrome extension store

  2. didn’t see himself accepting PRs — has a product vision

  3. did want to make source available so that people could assure themselves the code was benign

I don’t have a specific recommendation here. The easy mode is to just keep it closed source.

There was some discussion on business model, but more in the vein of it would be nice to stay motivated and that at some point the expectation of the extension continuing to work would then also be in place.

From my POV, this could be donations / patronage. The availability of source doesn’t matter: the bulk of end users won’t be compiling their own Chrome extensions.

Free for anyone that asks / for students was a goal.

My general take is that $5/month $50/year or $10/month $100/year are the “right” prices for people who pay for end user software like this at all. The payment is “I appreciate this software, I want it to continue existing, want to thank the developer”.

This has perhaps not been written down in this way by me: I buy from small businesses and donate to software because I want it to exist. Any feelings around digital bits having zero cost to copy, is very much balanced against maintenance, features over time, support and so on that costs much much more than zero.

I would prefer that such software is under an open license — as one more hedge against the creator going away.

1 Like

I think the source availability does matter for this scenario. Its source-available with a limitation on distribution.

Perhaps this can be done by adding only one clause to an OSS license?

1 Like