> The OSCC license would be a variant of Apache 2.0, BSD, or MIT, with the additional clause that the rights granted by the license are also predicated on paying for annual OSCC license fees.
Then it's not Open Source.
I agree that funding Open Source software is hard, and I want a solution as much as anybody: It's not even a theoretical problem for me, I am currently self employed and would really like to fund myself with just Open Source software.
What you're describing is a really bad idea though, it isn't actually FOSS. Heck, it's actually considerably worse than many of the other licensing models out there, because it basically boils down to being a subscription service. Many of us are involved in Open Source because we specifically hate the 'software rental' model.
Better ideas that I've seen people kicking around that I wouldn't immediately dismiss:
- putting a paywall in front of issue trackers
- dual licensing under the GPL and a proprietary paid license.
- requiring upfront payment for new features (ie Kickstarter/Patreon)
- open core models (ie Gitlab's strategy)
- advertising and sponsorships via READMEs and official sites.
Many of these ideas also have problems, but at least they don't require us to completely abandon FOSS licensing.
Then it's not Open Source.
I agree that funding Open Source software is hard, and I want a solution as much as anybody: It's not even a theoretical problem for me, I am currently self employed and would really like to fund myself with just Open Source software.
What you're describing is a really bad idea though, it isn't actually FOSS. Heck, it's actually considerably worse than many of the other licensing models out there, because it basically boils down to being a subscription service. Many of us are involved in Open Source because we specifically hate the 'software rental' model.
Better ideas that I've seen people kicking around that I wouldn't immediately dismiss:
- putting a paywall in front of issue trackers
- dual licensing under the GPL and a proprietary paid license.
- requiring upfront payment for new features (ie Kickstarter/Patreon)
- open core models (ie Gitlab's strategy)
- advertising and sponsorships via READMEs and official sites.
Many of these ideas also have problems, but at least they don't require us to completely abandon FOSS licensing.