HN Explorer

Ask HN: OSS license that only allows personal use

1 points by bradgessler ↗ HN
I've been thinking about making the source code available for some of my proprietary SaaS projects, but I'm not sure what license makes sense.

Here's roughly what I'd want out of the license:

1. The source code can't be used for commercial projects. I know this would be difficult to enforce, but having legal remedies for this in some jurisdictions is better than nothing.

2. People who contribute to the project would not own the source code. I know this stinks, but the way I look at it is if there's a bug in some proprietary software I'm using, I'd like the option of looking at the source code to fix it, and giving that commit to the owner/maintainer of the repo if it means I can have software with my bug fixed.

3. The license could allow people to self-host their own instance, but again, only if it's for non-commercial use. Ideally there's some remedy for if the company goes bust or in a direction the user doesn't like ... they could keep hosting it.

What existing type of license most closely matches this? Has anybody worked in a project with such a license? I can think of a few ways it would backfire, but hearing it from somebody with experience would be way better.

The intent is that I can continue to own the SaaS code while letting others fix things and self-host, if that's what they want to do.

13 comments

[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 41.2 ms ] thread
mattl
No such license exists because the open source definition prohibits discrimination of field so you can’t have a non-commercial license.

That said, look at the GNU AGPL. It doesn’t prohibit commercial use but a lot of companies seem wary of it.

bradgessler
Is “open source” a legal definition? I thought it was a concept that described specific licenses. I haven’t seen any technical or legal definitions for “open source” unless it’s a specific license, like GPL, MIT, etc.
mattl
The Open Source Initiative exists and if you’re not following it then you’re going to have a hard time claiming to be open source.
bradgessler
My point is “open source” doesn’t have any meaning in a legal sense. Even the Open Source Initiative is an “initiative”. It’s a word we use to describe a concept that describes specific licenses.

What does have legal meaning is copyrights and specific licenses, like MIT, GPL, etc.

For example, I could be a bozo and claim any software is open source. The open source initiative (and general public, HN, etc) might not agree and issue a public statement, but I’m not aware that they have any legal remedies unless they have a trademark on the phrase “open source”.

mattl
They might but also everyone is going to think you’re a bozo if you use “open source” and it’s not.
JoeyBananas
In practice, it would be not advisable to use any software with such a license simply because is non-standard.

Let's say someone wants to use your "wildcat" license. They'd realistically need to hire a lawyer just to understand what the legal implications of your license are. If you're planning to write this license so that you can just easily understand the implications by reading it, that is not wise because unless you are a lawyer you don't even know what you're doing or what the license really means. This is an important part of the problem that free software licenses are supposed to solve.