Middle ground between open source & closed proprietary?

[Sporkman]

An article on Sun's MySQL strategy re open-sourced core & proprietary addons got me thinking about open software vs. software as a business.

I'm wondering if there's some middle-ground licensing between open source & closed proprietary that would get the best of both... Something along the lines of selling customers the source code & the permission to use & modify it in perpetuity, but restricting their right to distribute it (hence retaining the distribution rights & its profits)...

I know that the mantra among open source ideologues is that code should be free to change & distribute, and only support may be charged for, but this seems to fall short as an incentive for someone to start up a software business venture.

Discuss.

[madjr]

I'm wondering if there's some middle-ground licensing between open source & closed proprietary that would get the best of both... Something along the lines of selling customers the source code & the permission to use & modify it in perpetuity, but restricting their right to distribute it (hence retaining the distribution rights & its profits)...



what you just stated is the same as all proprietary licenses dude.

i.e:

i just purchased a php script (like vBulletin forums). They give me the full source so i can modify it to my needs, but i can only use one 1 website/domain. I can't share or redistribute the script. It's proprietary.



anyway u look at it, proprietary is proprietary

i don't think you get the full difference between closed and open.

when we speak about "OPEN" we don't mean just to view the code. What we mean is for it to become "PUBLIC".

only 2 choices exists: proprietary (am the owner) and public (the world is the owner)

if i can view the code but the license is restrictive then is NOT open source.

Open source = Freedom

There is copyRight and copyLeft, but there's no copyMiddle

[Sporkman]

what you just stated is the same as all proprietary licenses dude.

i.e:

i just purchased a php script. They give me the full source so i can modify it to my needs, but i can only use one 1 website/domain.

anyway u look at it, proprietary is proprietary

i don't think you get the full difference between closed and open.

when we speak about "OPEN" we don't mean just to view the code. What we mean is for it to become "PUBLIC".

only 2 choices exists: proprietary and public

if i can view the code but the license is restrictive then is NOT open source.

Open source = Freedom

No - there's more than two choices. Buying binary blobs, versus buying code which you're not free to modify or use in any way, vs buying code which you're free to modify or use in any way, but not free to distribute, etc - these are all different choices.

Why would a business choose to use open source software? To avoid vendor lock-in, to avoid being dependent on a single company's support, to have the freedom to modify & use it now & in the future, etc. Businesses don't care about the freedom to distribute, so why not restrict that & make money off the distribution? That would keep third parties from taking your code & profiting off of it.

[Sporkman]

BTW, let me bring your attention to an important quote:

"Only the Sith think in absolutes." --Obi Wan Kenobi

:)

[madjr]

there are many restrictive licenses.

You may like Microsoft's shared source license (which was dismissed).

but like i said before, Open source = freedom

restrictive freedom =! open source (GPL)

[SunnyRabbiera]

what you just stated is the same as all proprietary licenses dude.

i.e:

i just purchased a php script (like vBulletin forums). They give me the full source so i can modify it to my needs, but i can only use one 1 website/domain. I can't share or redistribute the script. It's proprietary.



anyway u look at it, proprietary is proprietary

i don't think you get the full difference between closed and open.

when we speak about "OPEN" we don't mean just to view the code. What we mean is for it to become "PUBLIC".

only 2 choices exists: proprietary (am the owner) and public (the world is the owner)

if i can view the code but the license is restrictive then is NOT open source.

Open source = Freedom

There is copyRight and copyLeft, but there's no copyMiddle

I disagree, there is BSD that seems to take the copymiddle/copycenter stance.
I think its possible to have a middle ground license, where the benefits of a proprietary license and a open source one can meet as one.

[saulgoode]

I disagree, there is BSD that seems to take the copymiddle/copycenter stance.
I think its possible to have a middle ground license, where the benefits of a proprietary license and a open source one can meet as one.

While I agree that copyright and copyleft aren't the only options, BSD licenses are not really copymiddle; they basically release the product to the public domain (in a legally binding manner).

[smoker]

isn't it up to the person who creates the code to decide what way s/he will licence it. thenforth, it will be up to the prospective user to decide if that licence is compatible with what they may wish to use it for?

[forrestcupp]

there are many restrictive licenses.

You may like Microsoft's shared source license (which was dismissed).

but like i said before, Open source = freedom

restrictive freedom =! open source (GPL)

Open source != GPL

GPL is just one type of open source license. You're confusing open source with the Free Software movement.

But about the original post. Most professional software developers don't develop commercial software titles. The majority of developers are working in house developing software for that specific company to use to get their job done. So in that case, a license is inapplicable. It's a small percentage of the total number of professional developers that are actually working on commercial software titles for sale.

But you do make a good point. I'm sure there are licenses out there that support selling modifiable source code with restrictions on distribution. If you can't find one, all you have to do is make one up yourself and tack it on there.