Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license!
Tags: opensource, license, developer, entrepreneur
Published: 2023-08-20 22:42:20

Here's my story that you may find interesting.

First of all, I posted the following question on a StackExchange site and they immediately closed it.
[You can see it there](https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/14225/which-license-would-i-use-to-make-my-source-code-available-but-require-payment?noredirect=1#comment37624_14225) if you like.

## Posted Question

I have a completed project (SaaS) that I want to release as Open Source.

However, I want to create a tiered payment system which would be something like the following:

1. **Via my Site**: Using the SaaS solution via my web site: $X per month/year

2. **Personal use** (running SaaS on their own server & using it theirself): Free

3. **"Small" Professional Use** Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Small would be defined as Annual Revenue figure less than $XXX,XXX

4. **"Large" Professional Use**: Running SaaS on company server for employee use. $X per user per month -- Large defined as Annual Revenue figure greater than $XXX,XXX

5. **Royalty-Free**: Using SaaS as a subscription-based service: One-time payment $XX,XXX

## Modern License?

Is there a modern License which will allow me to:

Open source the code (so everyone can see it change it etc.)
Still charge for its use?

If there isn't a license like that, what are some reasons that there isn't?

## Reasons?

Are there legal reasons that this just can't be done?
Or, is this not done because people will steal the open source and use it without paying?

## How About A Nice Balance?
It seems like this would be a nice balance between:

1. allow source code to be fixed/inspected/etc. by users
2. allow a developer to live off the work that she has created?

Since I didn't get an answer I had to read a ton.

## After Extensive Research
I discovered there is a thing called [Source-Available software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software) which isn't OSS.

## My Question For Dev.To Devs

Why isn't there a nice license like the one I describe above?
One where intellectual property (and all that work we do as devs) is protected.
But, where we can still make the source open?

I also read this long article about [Open Source Dual Licensing](https://www.mend.io/blog/dual-licensing-for-open-source-components/) which means:
1. provide a GPL (General Public License) which is OSS but requires users to open up their software too.
2. Provides a second license so the user can "buy their way out of having to open up their software".

But that's not really what I'm talking about either.

## Here's What I'm Talking About
I'm talking about making my software completely open for examination, modification etc. but then if they use the software in a certain way then they have to pay.

That provides some help back to the original developer who created this useful thing when some MEGA-COMPANIES (Google, MS, Apple, IBM, giant companies) come along and use it.

## What Do You Think?
What do you think? Why don't we have a license like that? (Or, do we, and I haven't heard of it?)
Or, do I have to have a lawyer write that up for me?  

## Richard M. Stallman & Original Open Source Hopes
My idea would seem to even fit in with the original hopes that Richard Stallman had when he created the idea of OSS (Open Source Software).
Here's the original thing that happened that sparked Stallman to create this idea:

> In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were refused access to the source code for the software of a newly installed laser printer, the Xerox 9700. Stallman had modified the software for the Lab's previous laser printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users waiting for print jobs if the printer was jammed. Not being able to add these features to the new printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This experience convinced Stallman of people's need to be able to freely modify the software they use*.

You see, in this case they just literally wanted the source to be open but didn't care / mind that they would have to pay for the printer.  It should be the same way in a modern license: keep the ability for users to view/modify/repair the source but they may have to pay to use it.

### Edit / Update
Here's an interesting article I found but it is quite a few years old [How to Charge for your Open Source](https://www.mikeperham.com/2015/11/23/how-to-charge-for-your-open-source/)

#### A Better Article Which Probably Explains That I Cannot Create A License Like The One I Talked About Above
[Can You Charge for Open-Source Software?](https://www.pythonguis.com/faq/charge-for-open-source-software/)

## Bruno Lowagies Explains the Difficulties of OSS
[https://youtu.be/bZudGJw3Ck0](https://youtu.be/bZudGJw3Ck0)

* [From wikipedia entry on Stallman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman)*


* Article image from: [https://pixabay.com/vectors/creative-commons-licenses-icons-by-783531/](https://pixabay.com/vectors/creative-commons-licenses-icons-by-783531/)