The term that are already in use to describe this scenario is
called "open core". We don't use the term "open", at least not
in a positive meaning, but situation is different. Here we
actually have the chance to put "open" in negative light.
MySQL is an example: Oracle's MySQL
database software is dual-licensed under a proprietary license,
and the GNU GPL; proprietary
versions offer additional features and enterprise support plans.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_core#Examples
Do you think we should use the term "open core" to describe
partially proprietary software?
On 2016-11-14 16:23, Donald Robertson
wrote:
At the meeting Friday we discussed a few different situations that we
want to do something about on the directory. For each issue we have a
proposed solution and some possible text. We would love to get your
feedback on the solution, as well as help with the text.
# Bait and Surrender
The first case is what we're calling 'bait and surrender' - it is where
a company offers both a freely licensed version of their work and a
proprietary version, but the free version is inferior to the proprietary
one. Companies will do this to try and attract users and get them to
surrender their freedom by switching to the proprietary version. So
while there is free software there, we don't want to encourage users to
use the proprietary version, or even leave them confused about what the
situation is. The proposal is to create a tag for 'bait and surrender'
entries, which directory hackers can select where appropriate. Entries
with that tag will have a highlighted text warning about the situation
to let users know that while we are sharing the information about the
free version, they should be wary of the proprietary software the
company is also offering. For the directory entry, we should also make
sure to not link to the company's sites where they are offering the
proprietary version, and instead link people directly to repos or other
useful places that only show the free version.
## Proposed text
"The developer of this project maintains a freely licensed version of
their software that is inferior to their proprietary version. Make sure
that the version you receive is the freely licensed one."
# Freedom betrayed
The second case is somewhat similar, but we want to offer a different
solution. In the 'freedom betrayed' category, we have software that was
once free, but the developer has now betrayed the community by moving to
a proprietary license. Because the software was available under a free
license, people can continue to use and fork the older version of the
work, but newer versions are all proprietary. Again, we don't want to be
directing people to a situation where they're confused about whether
they're getting free software or not. But we also want to offer
different text to users confronted with this situation. So the idea is
to have a separate tag ('freedom betrayed' or something similar) that
will offer a warning explaining the situation, and encouraging a fork of
the project.
## Proposed text
"The developer of this project has abandoned freedom by making the
software proprietary. Newer versions of this software are not free
software. This package needs someone to make a free fork based on the
previously released free software."
Thank you all for any help you can provide. Feedback here is really
needed, as the changes will affect the course of the directory in
significant ways.
|