Transparency by default (confidentiality for a premium)

Continuing the discussion from Summary of Planned Changes (L0 -> stricteq):

I like this. There’s some overlap here with what Scarf is trying to do:

One of the toughest things about open source is that you don’t even have very good control over how to get properly credited by your users, commercial or otherwise.

Maybe we’re getting into licensing territory here, but I’d love to be able to charge extra for companies to be allowed to use my product commercially, without having to disclose that they’re a user. The biggest companies are the most important signaling effect of trust, and yet they are also the most likely to opt for confidentiality. I want to put a big premium on that confidentiality.


This caught my eye, too. A few things rolling around in my mind with it:

Having implemented licensing that’s listed publicly, it’s pretty easy to implement licensing that’s not, as a premium option.

Come to think of it, it’s pretty easy to implement licensing that gives the customer extra prominent placement on the project page, too.

The plan is still peer licensing a.k.a developer-to-developer licensing. That means individuals, rather than companies, would be listed. I had’t planned to allow individuals to list a current company or other affiliation, but I could.

I have it on my roadmap to give users the ability to add and remove company names at will. That way if they do side deals for site licenses, they can list those customers on their project pages, too.

I don’t plan to stop developers from doing deals on the side. But I do think there’s value in seeing lists of customers on project pages as functionally complete. That way it’s a reliable tool for accountability. If you spot someone using software, you can check if they’re listed on the project page.