Without getting too far into your actual term suggestions, you seem to be trying to control who can benefit from your license based on who they are (nimble startup versus evil monopoly) not on what they do with the licensed material. You're trying to get at it in a putatively user-neutral way, but you come right out front and say you're trying to control market outcomes with it. Without speaking for anybody but myself, I tried to get a "you can do X but not Y for Z time period with the licensed material if you meet the other requirements" and it got shot down. It got shot down with the nicest rejection notice I've ever gotten, but the message was clear. I don't see this general line of attack working: to the extent it will fit into the open source guidelines, it will not do what you want, and to the extent it does what you want, it will not fit into the open source guidelines.
While I am a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I do not speak for or represent any other member of the open source community. It's entirely possible I'm wrong, and if so, I look forward to having my error pointed out to me. MW -----Original Message----- From: license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Qian Hong Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 12:00 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: [License-discuss] Idea for time-dependent license, need comments Hi folks, I'm considering to create a new open source license which is so called "time-dependent license". I've thinking about it for more about one year, however, due to lack of law knowledge I'm not able to submit a formal request of review right now. I would like to post my idea here and listen to suggestions, any comments are great appreciated! The "time-dependent license" is something like below: Assume we have a license named "time-dependent GPL", or "Delay-able GPL", or simply "DGPL", which allow others: 1. Free redistribution source code and binary of the DGPL software 2. Create derived work from the DGPL software 3. Author of the derived work does not have to release the source code as soon as the binary is released, however, she/he has to release the source code after a define time, which is define in the license of the original work, for example, 4 years. 4. The derived work author can always release new version of their production with binary only at first, however, for each version she/he has released, finally she/he has to released the source code of that version. For example, binary v1.0 is released in 2012, binary v1.2 is released in 2013, so source code of v1.0 has to be released in 2016, and source code of v1.2 has to be released in 2017. My goal is to create a license which could encourage commercial using of open source code but prevent monopoly. Let's imagine the below scene: A. - Some guys created an open source software called Open Ware which is released under MIT. - A young company called New Soft built a commercial software called Great Ware base on Open Ware. For commercial purpose they decided to close source Great Ware. - Luckily several years later New Soft became a large company with great income, unfortunately, the company did not benefit the Open Ware community too much. What's worse, New Soft might become monopoly one day. B. - Some guys created Open Ware, which is released under DGPL - A young company called New Soft considered to build a commercial software base on Open Ware, at first they even didn't know how long their company will live, so they didn't mind too much about whether they have to release the source code in the future. DGPL was acceptable at that time, so they decided to use it. - Luckily again, several years later, New Soft became a successful company. However, New Soft had fewer chance to become monopoly, since it had to release the source code of their old production, so either the open source community or some random competitor could follow up with New Soft based on the old production from New Soft. On the other hand, New Soft still has the chance to keep up their market share if they work hard enough to continue improving their production, since they didn't need to release the latest source code at once. Fair enough, isn't it? So the idea is to use some delay-able license when you are creating open source project which allow commercial use while you wouldn't like anyone to become monopoly. My question is, in theory is it possible to create such licenses which satisfy "The Open Source Definition" from opensource.org and usable under some law system such as the U.S. law? If possible, how about other variants, for example: A delay-able license, which is MIT-like at first, LGPL-like later, and GPL-like in the end; A delay-able license, which is MIT-like at first, and GPL-commercial-dual-license-like in the end - at first anyone can freely (as beer) create derived work without releasing source code, however, some years later ( 4 years for example), one should either pay for the license or release the source code of the old production. Other variants? What about mixing any group of licenses with the magic of "delay-able"? License-A-like at first, then License-B-like, then License-C-like... Mix any licenses together if necessary, time is the magic. Sounds like a crazy idea, it that possible? I've searching for some time but didn't see anything like that yet, did I miss anything? Currently I'm not serious enough to create a formal license, but maybe this will happen in the future. I'm open to any suggestions, ideas and discussions, either for possibility or usability. I guess such license will benefit our community since it seems a win-win. At lease we'll have some more choice. How about your opinions? Any comment is great appreciated! Thanks for you time for reading the long post ;-) -- Regards, Qian Hong - Sent from Ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com/ -- Regards, Qian Hong - Sent from Ubuntu http://www.ubuntu.com/ _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
