I hope this message finds you well. I’d like to raise a genuine and respectful question regarding the legal aspects of monetizing developments based on Plone.
This is not intended as a joke or provocation, but rather as an honest reflection prompted by observing a project here in Belgium. The project in question appears to rely heavily on Plone for its technical backbone, yet the legal and commercial framework surrounding it is quite unclear. This has led me to wonder more broadly:
What are the accepted and legal ways of generating income from Plone-based developments or services, especially when the line between open-source contributions and commercial offerings becomes blurred?
Are there best practices or examples of clear legal models for monetizing such work (e.g., support contracts, SaaS offerings, integrations, proprietary add-ons, etc.) while remaining compliant with Plone’s licensing and the open-source ethos?
I’d be grateful for any insights, resources, or experiences you could share.
Thank you in advance for your time and for the great work the community continues to do.
I don't sell a technology. I sell a service to my clients.
Usually code that I write is owned by the client, but not code from third parties, including FOSS. My agreements always include a section about who owns the software used in the service, and that it complies with licensing requirements. I also encourage my clients to donate to FOSS to further encourage its development.
Sometimes I put into my agreements code that I write under an OSS license and have the client pay for its development. The reasoning I provide to the client is that by making the code FOSS, then other people can contribute to it and improve it, whereas if they want exclusive proprietary ownership then no one will maintain or contribute to it when we part ways.
You can sell services and consultation around Plone...a legal business for many Plone consultants since decades. You can also create your own product around Plone or based and Plone and sell it for whatever price. The GPL2 also applies here which means that you need to open all your custom code to your customers if they ask for it.
[at]mtrebron this category's description: "Use this category for topics related to the Plone Foundation, including legal issues such as trademark, licensing, logo use/misuse." Sorry to bother you.
@zopyx GPLv2 implies that the source must be open to everyone, not just customers — am I wrong?
@stevepiercy Naturally, the service is something that should be paid for — and rightly so.
What troubles me is when certain companies exploit the open-source spirit for commercial gain, charging the same rates as those working transparently with proprietary solutions. That alone is part of the game — businesses seek profit.
But here in Belgium, there’s this strange beast called the “intercommunale” — heavily subsidized, vaguely defined structures, often led by politically connected figures, partially funded by public money, and somehow exempt from public procurement rules while monopolizing entire sectors.
That’s not the fault of the Plone community, of course — but what’s troubling is how they use the open-source narrative, preaching knowledge-sharing and savings for public entities, while applying prices comparable to standard agencies.
To give an example: €5,000 per year just for hosting a municipal website for a town of 3,000 residents. I know hosting isn’t Plone’s responsibility either — but it gives an idea of the scale.
Since they don’t need to go through tenders, they can charge whatever they want. So yes, of course services should be paid for — but this feels like unfair competition, under the banner of open source, yet far removed from its original values.
[UPDATE: forgot to mention that this "intercommunale" uses plone, or my message is even more pointless ;-)]
That's cheap. Hosting usually includes monitoring, maintenance, and other labor. It's one reason I got out of that line of work as a self-employed individual. Clients can get free or cheap website hosting options on their own, and companies have the capacity to offer personalized hosting service.
Hello and welcome to the community. You are not "bothering" me. However, the question in your OP does not relate to Plone specifically, rather to OSS in general. Perhaps, you should have dropped the "intercommunale" keyword there, to clarify the particular situation that you want opinions on.
Since I'm not familiar with the framework, I asked ChatGPT:
What can you tell me about the Belgian "Intercommunale" framework, as it applies to monetizing services that are based on open source software?
Before it concludes with:
"By leveraging the intercommunale framework, Belgian municipalities can effectively monetize services based on open source software through shared development efforts, reduced procurement costs, and collective investment in digital solutions that benefit all participating members."
it drops the name of an organization that is quite well known in our community. By not disclosing this right away in your initial post, I get the impression that you have an axe to grind. If not, I apologize. Either way, please be more upfront: what is it that you want to know?
@hasgaard hello and welcome! This is indeed the correct and best place to ask any questions related to Plone
The organization in question is well known to us and is a highly regarded one, for the many ways it has fostered Plone and other open source tools, even organizing the annual Plone conference quite recently.
From what I know of their solutions, these provide a lot of functionality that would take a long time to develop and refine, and any commune using them benefits from having access to tools and procedures that many other ones use.
I don't know what your options are when it comes to software and websites for your town, but if you were to try to develop anything similar I expect it would easily cost 10-20x.
Plone itself can be used however anyone wants, and can be sold and services around it can be sold.
I'm also here to be reassured—or even convinced—that everything is being done by the book. To respond to @mtrebron, I'm not in competition. I don't believe it's necessary to name anyone at this point, as the situation could apply to all similar cases. But you’d have to be Belgian to fully grasp the ambiguity surrounding these administrative entities, which are regularly called out in the media for various issues. Of course, I clearly distinguish between the legal creation of these entities and the operational teams behind them. In this case, if the developers not only comply with the rules but actively contribute to the vitality of the Plone community with enthusiasm, that’s something I can only welcome. Still, I hope you’ll understand my modest concerns—any legal framework that enables a dominant position naturally invites scrutiny. That said, your input does offer reassurance on the matter of technical licensing.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it difficult to speculate about an unspecified "situation" and whether it applies to whatever you deem a "similar" case.
Even though I symphatize with your broader (and only implicitly expressed) question as to whether a (semi)commercial entity could theoretically monopolize a market by being an early entrant in such a market and using its status to strenghten its grip through a regulatory framework, I honestly believe such a question should be posed directly to the competent agencies. Let them clarify the situation if something appears unfair to you.
The secondary question is whether Plone as a global independent community should protect itself against political influence in general, be it an Intercommunale framework, Google, the EEA, RFA or the Open Society Foundation...
Are the issues about why competing solutions are not allowed...? Or discouraged? I imagine that it would cause other problems if every commune were to use its own system, even if similarly functionally rich. There are so many advantages to having a shared platform, including easier training and support as well as data interchange.
Re: how Plone can be used or sold, there are other companies using it but presenting an entirely different user interface that is domain specific, and you wouldn’t know that Plone is there. That too is perfectly allowed.
Yes to that. My first company was on the receiving end of a consolidation by several national governments as each of them developed publishing platforms for their foreign missions. It's the way it is. I ended up leading a team to create the Dutch government portal. All of this happened over 25 years ago... @hasgaard might just be a little late to the party to complain about what is probably a mature, entrenched system by now. Choose your battles.
None of this has anything to do with Plone per se. I'm out of here.
I am too old and too tired to see ideas already litigated to resolution and general consensus in and around open source over two decades ago resurface as if they can and do contribute to constructive conversation. This is not a productive conversation thread.
Plone and this discussion site is a productive community space largely filled with voluntary effort, and your subtle hint that somehow such a voluntary and collaborative community is somehow abetting monopoly behavior is ungrounded, unproductive, and unkind.
You are engaging in both Sealioning and FUD, and regardless of your intentions, these tactics are impolite at best in any online community. The "just asking questions" trope is a well-known abusive behavior in online spaces. Please reconsider your approach here.
