Miles - You might also check out the Reciprocal Public License: https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5
Authored by Technical Pursuit, it's direct intent is the same "pay for privacy" business model now enjoyed by companies such as GitHub. In fact, we couch our commercial offering as a 'waiver' allowing you to keep your code private. Cheers, - Bill On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> wrote: > Sec 10 of AGPL does not allow the imposition of additional restrictions to > it (such as "only for non-commercial uses), and section 7 allows a > recipient to remove those restrictions. > > You really are trying to develop a non-open source business model. This > board is probably not the best place for trying to do that. > > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On > Behalf Of Miles Fidelman > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:15 PM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services > > Thanks for the starting points, folks. > > I'm starting to think something like a dual license > - AGPL for non-commercial uses (AGPL + borrow some of the language from CC > BY-NC-*), and, > - Most of the terms of AGPL (re. download of source, etc.) + a license fee > for commercial use in an SaaS offering > > I'm really wondering if there are any specific examples of someone doing > this, or of someone trying to do this and running into serious snags. > (You know, learn from other people's experiences, not reinvent the wheel, > and if there are really good reasons not to try, better to know > early.) > > And, re. "You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board" -- > any thoughts on where to post? > > Thanks Again, > > Miles > > > On 8/5/16 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: > >> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses > that permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for > for-profit hosting. > > Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe > that AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of what you want, while > still being an open source license. > AND > > On 8/5/16 1:46 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote: > > There are any number of licenses written in this way. CC BY-NC-* for > example. > > None of them are open source, however. See OSD 1 & 6. > > > > You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] > > On Behalf Of Miles Fidelman > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > I'm working on some code that will eventually be made available as both > open source code, and a hosted service (think Wordpress, Drupal, etc.). > > > > I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses > that permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for > for-profit hosting. > > > > It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for generating > sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it gets diluted very > quickly if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much as I find it convenient to, > at times, set up a quick wordpress account on godaddy - it strikes me as > just a might unfair that I'm paying godaddy, but they're not paying the > folks at wordpress, and worse, they're siphoning off customers from > wordpress). > > > > Anybody have thoughts on the matter? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Miles Fidelman > > > > > > -- > > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss