Selling an Open Source Plugin
-
- KVRian
- 1379 posts since 26 Apr, 2004 from UK
Almost any open source license allows you to do that. GPL in that regard is the best because they will have to make the source code available, which is not the case for BSD for instance.
- KVRAF
- 15168 posts since 8 Mar, 2005 from Utrecht, Holland
Usually: yes indeed. But not nescessarily. The license itself can be free of charge, but you may charge for other things: support or any other "service".PurpleSunray wrote:Software bizz is not about selling installers... but licenses
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
-
- KVRian
- 853 posts since 13 Mar, 2012
So that is what I'm saying.ghettosynth wrote: You're right, I'm confusing the creative commons limitations with the GPL3 limitations with respect to software used as a service.
In any case, the point holds, choose a license that keeps the source open but restricts the sale of builds of the code.
He needs to work out / find license that fits to his model, like i.e JUCE did with GPL and commercial license.
You came up with idea of just open the code and sell installers... and that point does not hold, cuz I can also build that installer and sell for less.
~~ ॐ http://soundcloud.com/mfr ॐ ~~
-
- KVRian
- 853 posts since 13 Mar, 2012
Yeah I know. That's the "linux model" as mentioned on an earlier post.BertKoor wrote:Usually: yes indeed. But not nescessarily. The license itself can be free of charge, but you may charge for other things: support or any other "service".PurpleSunray wrote:Software bizz is not about selling installers... but licenses
Works best if you deliver most ugly code on earth (because they will need support from you to get it working ).
~~ ॐ http://soundcloud.com/mfr ॐ ~~
- KVRist
- 251 posts since 7 Feb, 2017
Might be worth looking into how Synergy monetizes on their open-source codes for keyboard/mouse sharing across monitors. Last I recall, they offer cross-platform compiled versions with enhanced security features + support. My guess is that the added barrier here may be cross-platforming.
-
- KVRian
- 853 posts since 13 Mar, 2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy_(software)nonnaci wrote:Might be worth looking into how Synergy monetizes on their open-source codes for keyboard/mouse sharing across monitors. Last I recall, they offer cross-platform compiled versions with enhanced security features + support. My guess is that the added barrier here may be cross-platforming.
I might create a costsless.com/synergy page and sell it for 18.99$Business model[edit]
See also: Free software § Business model
On 8 September 2014, the Synergy developers started charging a fee for distribution of pre-compiled binary files of Synergy on their website, while offering a free download for the source code. The developers claim only 0.002% of people were donating to fund the development before charging.
nah.. doesn't seem like it would be worth it
~~ ॐ http://soundcloud.com/mfr ॐ ~~
- KVRist
- 251 posts since 7 Feb, 2017
-
- KVRAF
- 2256 posts since 29 May, 2012
Here is another example of "the most ugly code" model: https://community.ardour.org/download
In this case probably achieved by having a large number of unsupplied dependencies that need to be built before building ardour.
In this case probably achieved by having a large number of unsupplied dependencies that need to be built before building ardour.
~stratum~
-
- KVRian
- 853 posts since 13 Mar, 2012
yeah, unsupplied dependencies are the basics on that buiness model. pros kill your nervs at runtime, like doing asumptions about vtbl layouts, calling conventions & co. that are only true on their environmentstratum wrote:Here is another example of "the most ugly code" model: https://community.ardour.org/download
In this case probably achieved by having a large number of unsupplied dependencies that need to be built before building ardour.
~~ ॐ http://soundcloud.com/mfr ॐ ~~