In practice such a timeout is probably redundant. I wrote a piece of GPL software a while back, and most people who purchased a license had been using it commercially for a while anyway. They just wanted to confirm that it would make them money before they spent any. Once their product achieves some success they buy a commercial license because they're worried about being caught.
Sent from Samsung Mobile <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Fergal Byrne <[email protected]> </div><div>Date:07-18-2015 1:05 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Matthew Lohbihler <[email protected]> </div><div>Subject: Re: A Note from Donna about NuPIC and the AGPL </div><div> </div>Hi Austin, The best example of this is MongoDB, which operates under the AGPL for this reason. I cannot take MongoDB on its own, modify it in some way (let's say by incorporating a new caching algorithm) and then market it as my own MongoDB++. I also couldn't provide MongoDB++ as a service without providing full source to my mods. I also raised your other point with Donna, about using NuPIC as a back end for some software service. As far as I can tell, you could simply build an API layer on NuPIC and release only that under (A)GPL, while keeping your client app completely closed. Since your code is only a "user" of NuPIC, this would fall outside the AGPL per se. You would however then be in the territory of building technology using Numenta-patented IP, so it'd be wise to think about talking to Donna at that point. On your comments re bootstrapping to an MVP using NuPIC, would it make sense for Numenta to develop a "pro-forma" precommercial license, with a timeout such as 12 months? This way, you can notify Numenta that you are likely to want to negotiate a commercial license, but they give you a year to get to that point at no cost. In the event you get no traction, just Open Source your code and you're good. Regards, Fergal Byrne -- Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June 2014: http://euroclojure.com/2014/ and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Austin Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: I see a couple of issues with the AGPL. The wording of AGPL is absolute regarding "all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network". This may become a barrier for anyone potentially interested in a commercial license later. For example, in Lean Startup parlance, I may want to experiment with a minimum viable product to gauge interest before investing too much effort into developing a commercial product. If I'm not already planning on using AGPL (very few do), I'm forced to consider the implications before I start my experimentation. Personally, I'd rather not have to worry about it -- I'd want to get users on my mvp as early as possible and not have to delay the process with commercial license negotiations, especially since I'd be at a disadvantage, not having any experience with the technology and not having much of an opportunity to make an informed estimate of the commercial viability. Google has even taken a stand and outright banned AGPL-licensed software for internal use (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/). I find that position to be reasonable, and I'm sure they are not alone. I'm also skeptical about the enforceability the AGPL with respect to closing the loophole. Let's say I want to get my product out and either don't want to seek out a commercial license or don't want to do it now. I might argue that, in many ways, you can incorporate nupic into your tech stack and not be required to share your source. For example, let's say I have a product that makes recommendations, and behind the scenes I use nupic in some small part of an ensemble. If this process is done in an offline/batch mode on behalf of the user and only the results conveyed to the user, then I might argue that my user has no interaction with nupic, and therefore my service is not subject to the virality of the AGPL. In other words, I'm either likely to avoid it like the plague, or try to get crafty. I'm not convinced that the AGPL helps in the long term adoption of nupic and related software, from either free or commercial licensing standpoints. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Matthew Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: Good questions... On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Dean Horak <[email protected]> wrote: > How does a project transition from GPLv3 to a different license, when all the > existing code has already been released as GPLv3. I assume that the GPLv3 > license will remain in effect for all existing code, and only new code > specifically contributed by Numenta specifically identified as AGPL will be > affected by this. Correct. The NuPIC (and related) code that currently exists on Github, and all the history of that code, is GPLv3. There is nothing we can do about that, it will always be GPLv3. When we change the license to AGPLv3, from that point forward, the repository and all future developments in the repo will be AGPLv3. So there will be a line drawn in time at the commit SHA when we make the license change. > But what about community contributed code? Surely Numenta cannot force the > community to adopt AGPLv3 should they choose not to since Numenta is > technically only a contributor (albeit the prime contributor) as well and not > the "owner" of the codebase. Actually, Numenta is the sole copyright owner of the NuPIC codebase, and the copyright owner has control over the license of the code. This means that Numenta, as the copyright owner, has the legal right to change the license without input from any contributors, because all contributors signed our Contributor License Agreement [1] that signs over all their copyright of their contributions to Numenta. > Do contributors have the option of choosing AGPLv3 or GPLv3? I suppose a > vote from the community to adopt AGPLv3 for all future code could be enforced > by the committers - only allowing AGPLv3 code into the codebase, but this > seemingly could lead to a fork of the code, which is probably not a desirable > outcome at this point. No, contributors will not get a choice in the matter. If this codebase were copyright many authors, a vote would be necessary to change the license. But because Numenta is the sole copyright owner, a vote is unnecessary. We do, however, care what our contributors think about licenses, and we certainly to not make such changes wantonly. > Again, I do not expect that this will have any real impact on me, but in the > spirit of clarity and transparency, I think response to these types of > questions should be considered. I am happy to answer any more questions. [1] http://numenta.org/licenses/cl --------- Matt Taylor OS Community Flag-Bearer Numenta
