Tell me more ×
Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 6 down vote favorite
3

I am working on a product that I don't feel is completely ready but I have a set of users that are very interested in using it now as "alpha" testers. I would like to give them the product now for free as "alpha" testers, but I would like to later license the software.

Is this possible? Can anyone point me to any links/books/articles/etc?

Thanks.

EDIT: Due to the lack of my clarity and the reponses to the question I thought I should add this statement.

I haven't decided if I am going to close-source or open-source this project yet. The user base that wants to get their hands on it now has kind of surprised me and I was concerned about what my options are as far as being able to give it to them now as open-source and later change to closed-source, or even vice versa.

Thanks to everyone who has answered and commented. I appreciate it the insights.

share|improve this question
Open or Closed source? – quickly_now Mar 7 '11 at 3:10
4  
If you give someone a product you make for free, that doesn't mean that all copies or redistributions of that product must be free. – ProdigySim Mar 7 '11 at 3:21

5 Answers

up vote 9 down vote accepted

If you own all the code, then you can re-release it under whatever license you want.

The problem comes if someone has contributed patches to the project. What usually happens is that they own that code, and they contributed it under the current software license. (You should have some sort of contributers agreement that covers this.) Therefore, to re-license it you will need their permission. Depending on how may contributers you have, this could be hard. For a reference for this, look at the OpenStreetMap license change and how long that is taking.

But IANAL, disclaimer, etc

And what ppl will make of your license change is another matter, as another answer comments on.

EDIT: I answered this as it relates to open source products. But re-reading the question I see it's not clear whether it's closed source or open.

If you are talking about 2 closed source licenses it's easy: If you own all the code, then you can re-release it under whatever license you want. Just make your alpha version commercial closed source license, all the usual terms (no copying, etc), just with a price of zero.

share|improve this answer
It's a fairly common strategy to have a commercial version with the latest features and updates, and have these migrate to a free open source version after a while. Alfresco and Magento do this, for instance. – Victor Nicollet Mar 6 '11 at 18:30
The problem of course then, is also for him to prove(!) his code is used in the closed source application. Which will be harder for him to prove than for you to disprove. – Rook Mar 6 '11 at 19:18
@victor Yeah ... or have a basic version open and a closed commercial version with enterprise added-features. How these strategies work is another Q. The contributers agreements for such programs can be more complicated and may put open source authors off :-) @Rook Ok, I answered this question as if moving between open source licenses. If there was a issue with moving from a open license to closed one, you'd find the open source developer who suspects their work was stolen will have a lot of ppl & organisations on their side and you generally want to avoid the resulting flamewar. – James Mar 7 '11 at 0:12
1  
What we do is have a contributor's agreement that contributors sign, and it assigns joint copyright (so both our corporation and the contributor own the code). In that way, we still have the ability to re-license, but they still have all rights that they had. This is the same way that SharpDevelop works. – Scott Whitlock Mar 7 '11 at 1:21
@scott Yup, see sugarforge.org/content/community/participate/… for an example. They take all rights and give you a license to use your code. Speaking as a developer who works on a open source project tied to a business, I can understand why such things are necessary but I would still be thinking long and hard about whether I wanted to contribute to such projects :-) – James Mar 7 '11 at 7:40
show 8 more comments
up vote 2 down vote

Your question is a bit unclear. The license doesn't typically control whether you give something away at no cost or not. The license has to do with things like ownership of the code, distribution, warranty and fitness for use, etc...

Are you intending to give them source code? If so, are you intending for them to be able to release their own products with it? Then you need a source code license.

If you are just giving them the binary, and don't want to charge for it, then you can just come up with a bare-bones license that covers your butt in terms of warranty and liability. State your copyright, say that it's only distributable as you specify.

Each version of the product you release is governed by it's own license, and if you are the sole developer, you can choose whatever license you want at any time, and change it at any time.

share|improve this answer
I appreciate your response. I suppose the lack of clarity is part of the question in a sense. I guess I was asking to see what kind of options I have if I wanted to let them have it with source now, and later decide to close it down (after the alpha period) or even vice versa. – Adam Mar 7 '11 at 15:08
Just don't include any license. They will then have on right to modify or redistribute. – David Schwartz Sep 23 '11 at 13:25
up vote 1 down vote

Well, personally I think it's a good thing that you're thinking about licensing at this stage.

From a consumer standpoint, I don't think you should change licenses once you choose one. That's not to say you can't (Movable Type is one notable example), but you run the risk of driving your userbase away (Movable Type is one notable example).

share|improve this answer
up vote 0 down vote

Yes you can provide them with a limited time version that will stop running at a certain point in time.

You can always release new version with an extended expiration if needed.

Until you are ready with the final version.

share|improve this answer
That's not really a solution to the license issue (ie, the legal license under which the software is released to the general public), though. – Timo Geusch Mar 6 '11 at 18:50
I did't understand that in the question. He asked if he could charge for the software afterwards. That's how I translated the question. – user2567 Mar 6 '11 at 18:55
1  
I think your understanding of the question is fine. A way of solving a "license" problem with early releases is to timebomb it. Nothing wrong with this, and it stops the old versions from being used (and support demanded) off into the future. You can have all the nice legal stuff as well, but a PRACTICAL way of making the point that "this is early and won't last forever" is a good thing to have as well. – quickly_now Mar 7 '11 at 3:09
+1 But you obviously need to make the users aware of this limitation - they don't want to run the app one day just to be notified that it is now dead. – Kirk Broadhurst Mar 7 '11 at 4:19
up vote 0 down vote

Don't know about your problem in general, but this is a good book if you need any help with the actual licenses and understanding that part of the problem.

Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing
enter image description here

share|improve this answer
And the book itself is under a Creative Commons license? Nice :-) – James Mar 7 '11 at 7:44

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.