Thread

Please give me your thoughts…

What do you think about releasing an open source web application in encrypted form but charging a reasonable fee to obtain the source?  Downloading the encrypted version would allow you to use it in full capacity as you wish… but to obtain source, you have to pay…

Thoughts?

To gain money with open source is not bad. But I would feel more comfortable with a system like EE : you can get the source of the core, but you have to pay for the plugins. It may depend of the application..

After all, your idea is not so bad, you should try it.

Downloading the encrypted version would allow you to use it in full capacity as you wish… but to obtain source, you have to pay…

Depending on the license used, it would probably be “legal” ... but it sounds like you want to release something and call it free, but not really.  Encrypting an application is almost the opposite of open source, isn’t it?

The part of the GPL that deals with this (Section 6b) says this:

b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

The wording of the GPL makes it clear that you must not restrict the source in any way. The part about paying for it is really intended for situations where you can’t just have it available for download ... as when it comes pre-installed in a device.  In any case, if you charge for the source code it should be freely available and at a very reasonable price.  To me, if you allow downloading of the encrypted binary, you should also allow downloading of the source.

Also, with most open source licenses, if you charge for the source code, someone else could make it available for download at no cost if they think you’re charging too much.

Now, if you mean “open source” in the sense that Microsoft uses “shared source” then of course you can charge thousands of dollars for the source, and it really isn’t open source in any sense of the word.

This confusion is part of why Richard Stallman prefers the term “free” rather than “open source”.

[quote author=“linuxbz”]
Depending on the license used, it would probably be “legal” ... but it sounds like you want to release something and call it free, but not really.  Encrypting an application is almost the opposite of open source, isn’t it?

If you can pay a small fee to download the source of the software, then yes, it would absolutely be free… free as in freedom, not as in beer.  It’s quite obvious that distributing an application in encrypted form is not distributing it in open source form… that is why I would also offer it in source form, only for a small fee.  However, I did just find that you cannot charge more for the source than you would for the binary encrypted version… so what I might do is just distribute it as source for the fee and skip over the binary version altogether.

Just because somebody pays for it doesn’t mean it’s not free.  Once again, free as in freedom, not free as in beer.  My time and efforts, however, are also free as in freedom, but not free as in beer.

[quote author=“linuxbz”]
The wording of the GPL makes it clear that you must not restrict the source in any way. The part about paying for it is really intended for situations where you can’t just have it available for download ... as when it comes pre-installed in a device.  In any case, if you charge for the source code it should be freely available and at a very reasonable price.  To me, if you allow downloading of the encrypted binary, you should also allow downloading of the source.

That would depend on what you think the word “restrict” means.

If you think that making a binary version of software available to the public with the *offer* of source code “restrictive”, then the GPL disagrees with you.

Also, I know I did ask for thoughts… but I think your interpretation of what the GPL means is too subjective.  For example, your quote, “To me, if you allow downloading of the encrypted binary, you should also allow downloading of the source.”.... actually, that’s according to the GPL, not according to you… but your quote, “The part about paying for it is really intended for situations where you can’t just have it available for download ... as when it comes pre-installed in a device.” is more your thought on how to interpret that portion of the GPL.

Please see plain-English FAQ’s:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowMoney
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee

And I’m a bit confused by your statement, “if you charge for the source code it should be freely available and at a very reasonable price”... Well, that’s exactly what I was planning to do.

[quote author=“linuxbz”]
Also, with most open source licenses, if you charge for the source code, someone else could make it available for download at no cost if they think you’re charging too much.

Absolutely they could, and that would be OK with me if I released under the GPL as the GPL would allow that to happen.

[quote author=“linuxbz”]
Now, if you mean “open source” in the sense that Microsoft uses “shared source” then of course you can charge thousands of dollars for the source, and it really isn’t open source in any sense of the word.

Oh please…  Microsoft?

Well, it seems I completely misinterpreted what you had planned, and re-reading my reply it does seem harsh.  Sorry.

I do agree that free software means free as in speech, not as in beer.  In fact, you can charge anything you like for a copy of the software.  That IS somewhat self-limiting, however, in that if you charge too much, someone can just get a copy of it and give it away.

We have Software Freedom Day coming up and I plan to make some copies of various free (mostly GPL software) along with a booklet about how to use it.  If it includes a CD I’ll charge US $10 for it; if a DVD I’ll charge $15.  The booklet will clearly say that they can make copies of either and give them away or sell them.  Or order from a company that has CD/DVD duplicators for less.  But if I have to make copies on regular CD/DVD writers, affix labels, bind booklets, well, I figure this amount IS free.

Also, my Markus school grades program is free (GPL3), but if you want direct support or training, it will cost.  I don’t have any objection to myself or anyone else earning a living providing services for free software.  Unfortunately, in English the “free” gets confusing.

So it sounds like we’re pretty much on the same page.  For some reason I thought you wanted to charge a considerable fee for the source rather than a small fee.  Maybe I don’t really understand why, if it’s in PHP, you’d want to provide it encrypted (obfuscated) anyway.

Anyway, sorry I jumped on ... maybe I was tired.  We just dug out from Hurricane Dean (passed about 29 miles north of us).  I SHOULD have been complimenting you on issuing it open source.

[quote author=“linuxbz”]Well, it seems I completely misinterpreted what you had planned, and re-reading my reply it does seem harsh.  Sorry.

Hey, no reason at all to apologize.  I tend to go a little crazy when debating, but I do enjoy them.  I didn’t mean to come off harsh, either… it’s just my “debate tone”.

[quote author=“linuxbz”]
I do agree that free software means free as in speech, not as in beer.  In fact, you can charge anything you like for a copy of the software.  That IS somewhat self-limiting, however, in that if you charge too much, someone can just get a copy of it and give it away.

Ultimately, if I do indeed charge for it, it will be anywhere from $5 - $25 for the download.

[quote author=“linuxbz”]
We have Software Freedom Day coming up and I plan to make some copies of various free (mostly GPL software) along with a booklet about how to use it.  If it includes a CD I’ll charge US $10 for it; if a DVD I’ll charge $15.  The booklet will clearly say that they can make copies of either and give them away or sell them.  Or order from a company that has CD/DVD duplicators for less.  But if I have to make copies on regular CD/DVD writers, affix labels, bind booklets, well, I figure this amount IS free.

Completely awesome!

[quote author=“linuxbz”]
Also, my Markus school grades program is free (GPL3), but if you want direct support or training, it will cost.  I don’t have any objection to myself or anyone else earning a living providing services for free software.  Unfortunately, in English the “free” gets confusing.

Hey, I’ve heard about that program quite a bit, I didn’t know you wrote it!  I totally agree with the paid support / training options and down the road see that as something I will most likely pursue when I have some ‘established’ applications out there.

[quote author=“linuxbz”]
So it sounds like we’re pretty much on the same page.  For some reason I thought you wanted to charge a considerable fee for the source rather than a small fee.  Maybe I don’t really understand why, if it’s in PHP, you’d want to provide it encrypted (obfuscated) anyway.

I use ionCube for distributing applications that I write for clients.  When I started, I had just started working with a fella (he’s more on the marketing side of things) and I didn’t want him to end up running off with my stuff and not compensating me for it.

[quote author=“linuxbz”]
Anyway, sorry I jumped on ... maybe I was tired.  We just dug out from Hurricane Dean (passed about 29 miles north of us).  I SHOULD have been complimenting you on issuing it open source.

As I said, no reason to apologize!  Even if we were in disagreement over the issue, that’s what the world is all about.  Hope the hurricane aftermath isn’t too disastrous for all of you.

Take care!

IMy own view is that encrypting the software limits the “open sourceness” of the product. An open source product should be just that, where the source code is readily available.

You could make money of training, customisation and support and distribution of the product. Everyone has to put food on the table, so that’s pretty OK. At the end of the day, its your preoduct, you can do with it as you please.

You migh have to think carefully about your licencing model. Open source is “viral” in nature, and promotes wide use and distribution of products. One of the cornerstones on the open source model is that someone obtaining the software should not deny others the rights that they enjoyed (access to the source code in this context). So you may need to impose restrictions on distribution if you are supplying source code only to subscribers.

The dual licensing model has worked well for may companies. so look further into that.

Report back on your findings. This is a very relevant topic.

One thing to think carefuly about is licensing…  While you might be quite entitled to charge for the source, most open source licenses won’t prevent someone who’s paid for the source from giving it away.  Hence once you’ve sold one copy of the source it’s entirely likely that there could be legitimate “free” (as in beer) versions of the source available.  You could try to prevent that in your license, but that’s going to severely limit the user’s freedoms.

Jim.

Thanks everybody for your input…

While I’m not necessarily new to the world of developing in PHP, I have yet to actually make any of my applications available to the public.  I have a couple right now that I’m trying to get wrapped up so I can do so and I do believe I’ll go full open source, no fees, encryption, etc and see how it works out.

Thanks again!