Selling Open Source
The past few days have proven interesting and encouraging. I’ve received many thoughtful comments and hopeful messages from users. However, there is some misinformation surrounding the timing and my motivations for making Briefs open-source. This post is the first of two I hope will clear up some confusion. First, I want to tackle the how and why I released the source for Briefs.
It was Always Open Source
Let’s get this out of the way: Briefs was always open-source. From the first release in September 2009, I announced that the current and future releases would all be open. I selected a modified MIT license for the first iteration because I wanted anyone to use the code how they saw fit. No strings attached and this solved the distribution problem perfectly. It was a framework for developers and any one could install it on their device.
Even before September, many designers were approaching me with a dilemma: how could they use the app if they were unable to build it from source? In that question, a version of Briefs for the App store was born. So, Briefs was open first; a for-pay build second.
With the App store version, designers could purchase a pre-built version that was dead simple to install on their device. (it was also an easy way for developers to give money to a project they found useful) The version I submitted to Apple in May was built as a way to get the app in a designer’s hands.
The Revised License
Many have already noticed that the original license for the Briefs.app source has been modified in the 1.0 release. In particular, I added lines protecting the Briefs trademark and the following clause:
“The Software and/or source code cannot be copied in whole and sold without meaningful modification for a profit.”
The complete license can be read here.
I had planned to detail the various sources that served as inspiration but, as luck would have it, a slashdot commenter has already done that for me. The commenter posits that the license is not “Open Source”, “Free Software” or “DFSG-free.” The basis of their accusation is that I don’t use an existing open-source license. They offer the addition of the above clause as proof that I hate freedom, apple pie and the American Way™.
Why do I Hate Your Freedom?
The irony of the slashdot comments is rich. Not only do I offer two separate embeddable libraries—one for reading briefs, another for running them—I do so under a license without the above modification clause. The truth is, I want people to use the .brieflist format. I envisioned it not only as a prototyping format but also as a UI specification document. Imagine if you could hand a developer a brief instead of a Photoshop mockup?
If you explore the briefs.app project, you’ll notice the revised license only covers the UI (e.g., view controllers, local storage, etc.) of the app. None of the core pieces of the Briefs framework are covered under the more restrictive license (since they’re part of sub-projects in other repositories).
I tried to use a scalpel when applying the clause.
Why the Clause Matters
You might ask, what essential liberty am I excluding by adding the modification clause? Ironically, nothing. My motivation for adding the clause was to prevent a scenario where someone would upload a carbon copy of my application to the App store, under their name, with their price. If I charged $15, someone could ask $8 and undercut me with little effort on their part. If I allowed that to happen, it would destroy my ability to sell the app. Then I’d have to make the choice to either sell or open-source the app. I wanted to do both.
However, this entire train of thought is moot if I can’t sell the app in the first place. Currently I’m only withholding your right to submit this app to Apple and wait three months not to be accepted or rejected. I’m such a greedy bastard. Shame on me.
The New Open Source Business Model
The license, despite opinions, is actually a professionally engineered piece of legalese that allows you to open-source your app and still sell it. A lot has been said about Apple’s walled garden but since they control distribution, a majority of the market can’t install an app from source. That sucks if you’re a user, but fortunate if you’re a developer that wants to open-source your application.
Most assume you can’t sell open-source software because no one would pay money for something they can install for free. Free software is practically synonymous with liberty and no cost. When the App store, the equation changed. Interested parties now have the liberty to examine or modify (and re-install if you pay Apple) an application while developers charge a fair price for their applications. Freedom for users, beer money for developers.
Needless to say, I’m excited about the prospect of the new model. Imagine how powerful this would be for budding developers? What if you could look under the covers of your favorite apps? What could you learn?
Even users would see a direct benefit. Jeff LaMarche talks about coding as if everyone is watching and with an open-source business model everyone could be watching. Vanity alone would dictate better engineering!
Introducing the Rhyne Open Source Software (ROSS) License
When I asked Jonathan Rhyne to author a new open-source license I provided a simple wish list:
- Royalty free use in commercial and non-commercial projects
- Attribution should be required
- Prevent people from submitting an unmodified copy to Apple for sale
- Simple language
The result is a modified MIT license with BSD-style attribution that is compatible with the Apple’s distribution model. It gives the discerning developer peace of mind knowing that your brand and trademark are protected, while freeing them to share the coolest bits of their implementation.
This license is my gift to you. Take it and use it.
You Still Need an Attorney
There is some fine print. Obviously this license, as with most open-source licenses, has not been tested in a courtroom. I cannot guarantee it’ll hold up in court and we live in a world where some stooge will try to find a way around it. When that happens, you’ll want an attorney.
Jonathan did a spectacular job bringing classic open source licenses into the modern age. He’s a closet Apple lover and he knows the answer to the ultimate question1. If you’re an app developer, you want him on your side. Who else has an attorney that does consultations over FaceTime2?
He’s even on the Twitter.
1 Which ship would win, an Imperial Star Destroyer or the Starship Enterprise? ↩
2 Of course, he isn’t as handsome as his older brother. ↩
