Capisso VMPanel

[joepie91]

No, while our source will be completely public, you'll need a license to install and use the software in production.

Then it's not open-source, but just readable source, a very different concept. One lets you freely reuse and redistribute the software, the other doesn't.

EDIT: Huh? How are you going to 'require a license to install and use in production' when the source is licensed under a BSD license? That contradicts the license.

 

[perennate]

So... I guess it's only licensed under BSD-3 to customers (which means any customer can then redistribute the panel themselves!)

 

[joepie91]

So... I guess it's only licensed under BSD-3 to customers (which means any customer can then redistribute the panel themselves!)

Well, that's the only explanation I can think of... but that would mean that it technically doesn't require a license to install and use.

 

[David]

Maybe add a licence checker? like whmcs? http://www.whmcs.com/members/verifydomain.php discredits the host instantly really..

 

[concerto49]

Well, that's the only explanation I can think of... but that would mean that it technically doesn't require a license to install and use.

It means it can literally be packaged and resold by anyone as well. If it's open source, you can really only sell support and services over it.

 

[joepie91]

It means it can literally be packaged and resold by anyone as well. If it's open source, you can really only sell support and services over it.

Depends. It's fairly common to offer both a GPL-licensed version (that requires redistribution of changes) and a (paid) version under a proprietary license that allows to modify it without having to redistribute the changes. That wouldn't work for BSD-licensed software, though.

 

[concerto49]

Depends. It's fairly common to offer both a GPL-licensed version (that requires redistribution of changes) and a (paid) version under a proprietary license that allows to modify it without having to redistribute the changes. That wouldn't work for BSD-licensed software, though.

Exactly. It did say BSD. I'm aware of the GPL situations, yes. db4o was something we also looked at for databases and has been successful with this license model you describe. Many other examples - but not BSD.

 

[perennate]

Would have to be AGPL though?

 

[clone1018]

Hrm, I've taken a more in depth look into our license and licensing situation and I'll be trying to figure it out as development goes along, for now the software is still BSD-3 licensed (at least until we start charging or figure out what we need to do instead). If any of you guys have a better idea, my goal is to provide the source, open and free for people to modify and learn from. But I want to charge for the software so I can maintain it, fix it and support it like you'd expect from any other software. Our options at this point are to do it like Cartalyst and hide the source until you subscribe, then you'll have full access. OR we can have different licenses, the default license being "free to develop and modify, not to resell or use, a developers license", then we could also have a company license which would allow the software to be used. 

Just let me know what you guys think, I don't want it to be too complicated but I want our license to encapsulate all of our needs.

Thanks!

 

[vanarp]

Simple. Just stop calling it Open Source software as the source is not really Open enough.

 

[clone1018]

Simple. Just stop calling it Open Source software as the source is not really Open enough.

What's not open about it?

We're not calling it Free Open Source Software (FOSS), we're calling it Open Source software, because our entire source code is visible by everyone. 

 

[joepie91]

What's not open about it?

We're not calling it Free Open Source Software (FOSS), we're calling it Open Source software, because our entire source code is visible by everyone. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source

Open-source doesn't mean that the source code is visible, it entails free distribution as well. The whole internal flamewar in the open-source community about how 'open' would not be clear enough so a new term ('free' and then 'libre') had to be invented, doesn't change that.

Calling software open-source when it's not freely distributable is simply misleading. At best, you can call it visible-source. We've had this entire discussion with someone (jhadley I believe?) on LowEndTalk about 'OpenBill', which was eventually renamed to Billr for this exact reason... I'm sure that you can find that thread with Google and read it back.

 

[clone1018]

Thanks for your insight joepie (and everyone else), I'll be taking your advice and changing our strategy on this. I'll let you guys know when I have an update from the licensing end.

 

[clone1018]

We

 

[jhadley]

You have a nice product, and if it helps, I think you're probably doing the right thing. I debated with myself and others on the same subject and came to a similar conclusion for Billr - as much as you want to keep things open for your customers, it's more important to guarantee yourself a decent revenue stream so the software can continue.

 

[clone1018]

You have a nice product, and if it helps, I think you're probably doing the right thing. I debated with myself and others on the same subject and came to a similar conclusion for Billr - as much as you want to keep things open for your customers, it's more important to guarantee yourself a decent revenue stream so the software can continue.

Thanks, that's exactly what the problem was. It was quite difficult coming to that solution though but I believe it's for the best.

 

[concerto49]

Thanks, that's exactly what the problem was. It was quite difficult coming to that solution though but I believe it's for the best.

That's great and support you on that part, but as joepie has said, please drop the open source usage. It's not. You're providing source code on purchase, which is not open source. Open source is when it is freely available without the need to purchase.

 

[kaniini]

And after quite a bit of thought and input from others, we

 

[joepie91]

That's great and support you on that part, but as joepie has said, please drop the open source usage. It's not. You're providing source code on purchase, which is not open source. Open source is when it is freely available without the need to purchase.

Close, but not entirely. Open-source isn't about free availability, it's about free redistribution. While free availability can technically happen with paid/private open-source software (because whoever bought the software decided to put it online for free, legally), it's not a given. It's very well possible that all those that purchase the commercial open-source code, just don't bother putting it online... with as a result that, while there's free redistribution, there's no free availability.

 

[clone1018]

That's great and support you on that part, but as joepie has said, please drop the open source usage. It's not. You're providing source code on purchase, which is not open source. Open source is when it is freely available without the need to purchase.

 Yeah, I'll be changing the wording of our topics from "Open Source" to "the source is open for customers to checkout" or something like that, haven't quite figured it out.

*golfclap*

How about instead of holding your source hostage, consider this:

1. Most of the people who will be using your software are idiots and have no business running a hosting company.

2. When said people screw up their hosting company, they will come to you for help.  At this point, you can charge them a lot of money.

No, really.  You can make money off of support in virtualization software, because most VPS companies are run by complete idiots.

In fact, I bet you'll make more money this way than holding your source hostage.

 I really don't see how making the source only available to customers is holding it hostage, especially when most of the libraries we'll be using to power the software are a ) either already foss or b ) will be foss when when the panel is released. For example, our salt communication library, our main website and our licensing software are already planned to be 100% FOSS. I still believe in open source, but I don't believe the company could support itself off of outrageous support fees . I really don't like how expensive hostbill is for things, and I think if you have a problem and you've already bought the software, support should come with it, free. 

As far as planning for the future, this is the best path. If we fail, we can go open source and convert the company, but converting the company from FOSS to paid would never stand up. More then anything I want this company and it's panels to survive. This is the way.

Thanks,

Luke