<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../assets/xml/rss.xsl" media="all"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Alessandro's View (Posts about licensing)</title><link>https://alexpacio.github.io/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://alexpacio.github.io/categories/licensing.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><language>en</language><copyright>Contents © 2026 &lt;a href="mailto:alexpacio91 at gmail dot com"&gt;Alessandro Bolletta&lt;/a&gt; </copyright><lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:01:29 GMT</lastBuildDate><generator>Nikola (getnikola.com)</generator><docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs><item><title>Software Sustainability for Small Developers</title><link>https://alexpacio.github.io/posts/software-sustainability/</link><dc:creator>Alessandro Bolletta</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Let’s face it, open source has largely become a luxury game. It works beautifully for mega-corporations with deep pockets, or the lucky few smaller companies that managed to build massive, hyper-engaged user bases years ago. For the rest of us—the solo creators and small teams actually pushing technology forward—giving away the recipe just isn't a viable business model anymore.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But I also refuse to buy into the cynical narrative that because code is easily replicated, what we produce is "just an asset" and fundamentally worthless. Small-scale innovation is essential, but we need a licensing model that actually lets us survive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For a long time, I’ve wanted to use a specific model: the customer pays a premium, and in return, they get access to both the executable binaries and the underlying source code.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;From a security and long-term maintainability standpoint, it’s the ultimate insurance policy for a buyer. If they are deploying my software onto a critical platform, they need to know they won't be left stranded if my business goes under or if I decide to change careers. They have the code; they can keep the lights on.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But in the past, pitching this always hit a brick wall. Customers would look at the source code and shrug. &lt;em&gt;“That’s great,”&lt;/em&gt; they’d say, &lt;em&gt;“but we don't have the engineering skillset to maintain this anyway. If you stop supporting it, the raw code is useless to us.”&lt;/em&gt; And they weren't entirely wrong. Digging into someone else’s codebase, auditing it for security, or trying to recompile it against a newer platform used to require a lot of expensive, specialized engineering time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But modern LLMs completely change this dynamic. The "we don't have the skills" excuse is officially dead.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Today, a company can buy software from a completely unknown indie developer and bridge the technical gap using AI. They don't need a dedicated team on standby to gain peace of mind. With a frontier LLM, they can:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class="simple"&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Audit the code:&lt;/strong&gt; Drop the source into an LLM to scan for security vulnerabilities or backdoors before deploying it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maintain it long-term:&lt;/strong&gt; If the software needs to be recompiled against a newer OS version five years from now, an LLM can guide a junior IT admin through the refactoring and compilation process step-by-step.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;AI turns raw source code from a useless, intimidating liability into a genuine insurance policy for the buyer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Looks like a standardized legal framework already exists that perfectly fits this model: the &lt;strong&gt;PolyForm Internal Use License&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;PolyForm is a family of source-available licenses written by legal experts, and their "Internal Use" variant aligns exactly with how independent developers need to monetize right now:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class="simple"&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What's allowed:&lt;/strong&gt; The customer pays once and gets full access to the production binaries and un-obfuscated source code. They get an indefinite right to run the software, make internal copies, and modify the code freely for their own internal business operations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The strict boundary:&lt;/strong&gt; Zero redistribution rights. The customer cannot distribute the software (modified or not) to third parties, sublicense it, or use it to host a competing SaaS product. The code stays strictly within their own walls.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using a standardized option like PolyForm would be a great idea because it gives both sides instant clarity. The developer gets a rock-solid copyright defense to protect their revenue stream, while the enterprise buyer gets a recognized legal framework that permits their engineers (and their LLMs) to handle internal maintenance without legal ambiguity.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This model moves us away from the unsustainable expectation of "free" open source, without forcing clients to rely on a fragile proprietary black box. It respects the customer's need for autonomy and the developer's need to get paid.
LLMs aren't just changing how we write code; they’re changing the economics of how we sell it. And for independent developers, this feels like the path forward.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>ai</category><category>indiedevelopers</category><category>licensing</category><category>open-source</category><category>sustainability</category><guid>https://alexpacio.github.io/posts/software-sustainability/</guid><pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:20:00 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>