Re: Subscription/Service Fees
On Tuesday March 27 2001 08:16 am, David Davies wrote: It appears that the Open Source definition would not specifically limit a license from requiring users to pay a subscription fee or month service fee for using the software. Perhaps I am missing something? You can charge your customers whatever they will bear in order to acquire the software. However, you may not prevent them from distributing it to someone else for no charge. I don't see anything in the OSD that *specifically* forbids usage charges. But so what? Whether or not the OSD allows "usage charges" is irrelevant. All I have to do is give a copy to my friend, he gives me a copy back, and I don't have to pay him nor does he have to pay you. Tada! However, playing devil's advocate, you could distribute it as normal closed source shareware, and only offer an Open Source license upon registration... -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Subscription/Service Fees
on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 06:09:03PM +0900, David Davies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tuesday, 27 March 2001 9:44 AM, David Johnson wrote On Tuesday March 27 2001 08:16 am, David Davies wrote: It appears that the Open Source definition would not specifically limit a license from requiring users to pay a subscription fee or month service fee for using the software. Perhaps I am missing something? You can charge your customers whatever they will bear in order to acquire the software. However, you may not prevent them from distributing it to someone else for no charge. I don't see anything in the OSD that *specifically* forbids usage charges. But so what? Whether or not the OSD allows "usage charges" is irrelevant. All I have to do is give a copy to my friend, he gives me a copy back, and I don't have to pay him nor does he have to pay you. Tada! Maybe I don't get some key part. I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software you are required to pay $x to xyz inc. Nope. Violates #7: "The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties". http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html You can charge for subscriptions to updates (Cf: Red Hat). You can't charge for ongoing execution rights. You repeat this error several times in your post. There is no way to stop user A giving it to user B, and in fact that action is likely to be actively encouraged as it is with shareware. However, if the license clearly states an obligation to register and pay a subscription fee then users who are complying with either the legal or moral implication of the license will often pay. Does making the Source Open negate this obligation in some way? (That is assuming that you accept the obligation is valid in the first place) The OSD is not compatible with your stated goals. Netscape was able to actively sell into those corporations in a very interesting manner. "Since you already have our products and the license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us." Support this statement with a citation and/or reference. However, playing devil's advocate, you could distribute it as normal closed source shareware, and only offer an Open Source license upon registration... Perhaps the issue is whether distributing software to a 3rd party means you have also transferred the right to use that software also. #7. -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org PGP signature
Re: Subscription/Service Fees
"Karsten M. Self" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Netscape was able to actively sell into those corporations in a very interesting manner. "Since you already have our products and the license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us." Support this statement with a citation and/or reference. Do you not believe that? I also thought that that was what they did. Of course, it was before Netscape was using an open source license. Back then the Netscape license said you could use it for some time for free (30 days, maybe) and then you had to purchase a license. This was not enforced by the code. I actually purchased a license, myself. I paid $30 or so. Netscape sent me a piece of paper. It was only after Internet Explorer was released for free that Netscape went to fully free licensing, and, for Mozilla, open source. If David thinks that Netscape asked for licensing fees after they were under an open source license, I'm sure he is mistaken. Ian
Re: Subscription/Service Fees
"Karsten M. Self" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software you are required to pay $x to xyz inc. Nope. Violates #7: "The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties". http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html How is there an additional license required? A requirement to pay somebody something does not imply that an additional license is required. I believe the original poster is envisioning it simply as a clause in the (sole) license. You can charge for subscriptions to updates (Cf: Red Hat). You can't charge for ongoing execution rights. Of course not. "Execution rights" are not among the exclusive rights listed in 17 USC 106 (assuming we are talking about a copyright license in the US), so it makes no sense to talk about granting them. A shareware style requirement to pay for use is not a matter of granting (or not granting) specific rights, but of imposing obligations in return for the rights which are granted. Clearly, #7 does not apply. --
Re: Subscription/Service Fees
David Davies writes: Maybe I don't get some key part. I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software you are required to pay $x to xyz inc. There is no way to stop user A giving it to user B, and in fact that action is likely to be actively encouraged as it is with shareware. However, if the license clearly states an obligation to register and pay a subscription fee then users who are complying with either the legal or moral implication of the license will often pay. Some people think that copyright law doesn't actually allow you to prevent people who have a legal copy of the software from using it in any way they like. D. J. Bernstein, author of qmail, is a well-known proponent of this view: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html The usual assumption in the free software community has been that probably software _can_ be accompanied with a legally binding license which even regulates non-copyright activities. But people don't necessarily think that this is a good situation, just that this is the way the courts or the industry are going. Professor Bernstein points out that there is no consistent legal precedent in the U.S. for licenses to regulate use. Free software licenses mostly don't attempt to -- although some licenses claim to be contracts. I think the uncertainty around this question prevented the OSD from specifically saying that the license must not forbid the program from being used for any purpose by anyone who has a copy. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: Subscription/Service Fees
On Tuesday March 27 2001 09:09 am, David Davies wrote: Maybe I don't get some key part. I wasn't thinking of any form of copying restriction, only having it clearly stated in the license that if you continue to use the software you are required to pay $x to xyz inc. There's one key element of Open Source and Free Software that unfortunately is not explicitly spelled out in boldface in the OSD. But everyone agrees to it regardless of political ideology: once you own a copy of Open Source Software, you *own* the copy. And as the owner no one else can tell you that you can or cannot use it. Copyright Law will give you justification to restrict its distribution and public performance, but it gives you no legal grounds to prevent its use. There is no way to stop user A giving it to user B, and in fact that action is likely to be actively encouraged as it is with shareware. However, if the license clearly states an obligation to register and pay a subscription fee then users who are complying with either the legal or moral implication of the license will often pay. If I have given my friend a copy of an Open Source program, they now possess a legal copy. You cannot restrict their usage of it. This is much like what Netscape did originally. Many private users I assume didn't register or pay for Navigator, but most corporations did. Netscape Navigator was not Open Source at the time. Perhaps the issue is whether distributing software to a 3rd party means you have also transferred the right to use that software also. Absolutely you have! Definition #7. And according to a link given elsewhere in this thread, Copyright Law does not give you exclusive right to usage so that you can subsequently parcel that right out. This is the second thread in half a year trying to figure out some way to charge for usage of Open Source. Why? Why do you want to charge usage fees for Open Source Software? Why not stick with a normal shareware license and be done with it? -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Subscription/Service Fees - Netscape
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 7:25 AM, Karsten M. Self wrote: -Netscape was able to actively sell into those - corporations in a very -interesting manner. "Since you already have our - products and the -license says you are required to pay we suggest you pay us." - - Support this statement with a citation and/or reference. - - Do you not believe that? I also thought that that was - what they did. - - The statement is strongly worded, isn't supported by - reference, and is - ambiguously stated. Does the statement mean that these companies are - obligated to pay for use of Mozilla because of their prior - licensing of - Netscape versions = 4.x? Does it refer to Netscape server-side - products? Does it refer to contractual obligations to pay - for software - through some specified time period? Sorry for being unspecific but I did say in the paragraph immediately prior "This is much like what Netscape did originally." Originally (at the beginning) implies the practice is not continued to this date. Regarding the statement it was not meant to be an exact quote. I was consulting on intranet projects at a number of larger corporations during '97 and '98 and saw first hand Netscape's approach to sales. I meant to express only the tone of the approach Netscape took in sales to these companies. To clarify. The example refers to Netscape sales activity during '97 and '98 and perhaps a little on either side. It is my experience only but I assume other people will be able to verify whether it was a prevailing practice or not. It only applies to people who used versions = 4.x of Navigator and only to the registration fee.
RE: Subscription/Service Fees
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 7:36 AM, Eric Jacobs wrote : - Violates #7: "The rights attached to the program must - apply to all to - whom the program is redistributed without the need for - execution of an - additional license by those parties". - - http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html - - How is there an additional license required? A requirement - to pay somebody - something does not imply that an additional license is - required. I believe - the original poster is envisioning it simply as a clause in - the (sole) - license. I confirm that that was what I envisioned. I can see no reason why a clause can not be added to the license that states; " x.1 If you continue to use this software or any derived work after a thirty (30) day evaluation period you are required to register it. x.2 Registration can be performed at register.xyz.com " This would also require another clause as follows for it to apply to derived works also. " y.1 Redistributions of source code or any derived works must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. y.2 Redistributions of this product or derived works in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution." - You can charge for subscriptions to updates (Cf: Red - Hat). You can't - charge for ongoing execution rights. - - Of course not. "Execution rights" are not among the exclusive rights - listed in 17 USC 106 (assuming we are talking about a - copyright license - in the US), so it makes no sense to talk about granting - them. A shareware - style requirement to pay for use is not a matter of granting (or not - granting) specific rights, but of imposing obligations in - return for the - rights which are granted. Clearly, #7 does not apply. That is the way I understand it also and the basis of the original question. Is there any reason why the obligation to pay a registration fee can not be included in an Open Source license. The question also doesn't refer to the possibility of enforcing the obligation by way of law either. According to http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html " 7. Distribution of License ... Rationale: This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement." The reason and intent of clause 7 appears to be to stop the limitations being imposed on the use of source code or program by way of a separate license. Requiring a registration fee does not "close up" in that sense. Regards, David Davies
Re: Subscription/Service Fees
On Wednesday March 28 2001 03:51 am, David Davies wrote: I can see no reason why a clause can not be added to the license that states; " x.1 If you continue to use this software or any derived work after a thirty (30) day evaluation period you are required to register it. x.2 Registration can be performed at register.xyz.com " Definition #2: "...here must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost..." Thus, I must be able to obtain at least the source code with out having to pay a registration fee. Any other fees for the source code are not allowed. Definition #7: "The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties." An additional execution of the license after thirty days has expired is a no-no! When I give a copy of the program to someone else, they immediately gain all the rights that I do without having to get an additional permission from you. Open Source is not "gratis" software. But neither is it "non-gratis" software. You may not stop me from distributing my copies as gratis. You cannot prevent it from becoming free-beer. Is there any reason why the obligation to pay a registration fee can not be included in an Open Source license. Definition #1 says that I don't have to pay you royalties if I give away or sell copies of your software. And definition #7 says that those I give it away or sell it to deal directly with me, and not you. So you can't charge registration fees to third parties. If you really want registration fees from all users, then why not just keep your software closed source? -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Subscription/Service Fees
To allow the user to improve the software for themselves to suit there environments. -Original Message- From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2001 5:36 AM To: David Davies; 'Eric Jacobs'; License-Discuss (E-mail) Subject: Re: Subscription/Service Fees On Wednesday March 28 2001 03:51 am, David Davies wrote: I can see no reason why a clause can not be added to the license that states; " x.1 If you continue to use this software or any derived work after a thirty (30) day evaluation period you are required to register it. x.2 Registration can be performed at register.xyz.com " Definition #2: "...here must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost..." Thus, I must be able to obtain at least the source code with out having to pay a registration fee. Any other fees for the source code are not allowed. Definition #7: "The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties." An additional execution of the license after thirty days has expired is a no-no! When I give a copy of the program to someone else, they immediately gain all the rights that I do without having to get an additional permission from you. Open Source is not "gratis" software. But neither is it "non-gratis" software. You may not stop me from distributing my copies as gratis. You cannot prevent it from becoming free-beer. Is there any reason why the obligation to pay a registration fee can not be included in an Open Source license. Definition #1 says that I don't have to pay you royalties if I give away or sell copies of your software. And definition #7 says that those I give it away or sell it to deal directly with me, and not you. So you can't charge registration fees to third parties. If you really want registration fees from all users, then why not just keep your software closed source? -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: Subscription/Service Fees
On Wednesday March 28 2001 04:48 am, Robert Kolzan wrote: To allow the user to improve the software for themselves to suit there environments. But you can do that without the software being Open Source. You do not need the approval of the OSI in order to make your source code available. There are dozens of software packages that are in no way Open or Free yet allow the user to modify the software for themselves. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
On Wednesday, 28 March 2001 6:20 AM, David Johnson wrote - To allow the user to improve the software for themselves - to suit there - environments. - - But you can do that without the software being Open Source. - You do not need - the approval of the OSI in order to make your source code - available. There - are dozens of software packages that are in no way Open or - Free yet allow the - user to modify the software for themselves. So back to one of the questions in my original e-mail "Is this a practice that is intended to be prohibited?" [under the OSD] A number of people seem to feel it is against the spirit of the OSD. This may very well be the case. If so why isn't there a more specific clause in the OSD to clarify the point ? At least one of the annotations (Rationale sections) could be expanded to clarify that that is the intention of whichever clause has the effect of limiting this action. It has been suggested that clause 1. Free Redistribution or clause 7. Distribution of License would limit such a license being accepted but neither is specific or entirely clear in that regard. Regards, David Davies
Re: Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent
On Wednesday March 28 2001 07:28 am, David Davies wrote: So back to one of the questions in my original e-mail "Is this a practice that is intended to be prohibited?" [under the OSD] I would say that registration fees are intended to be prohibited. If so why isn't there a more specific clause in the OSD to clarify the point ? That's the trouble with a formal legal definition, and possibly why the FSF has never made one for Free Software. I have often wondered where the US Supreme Court finds some of the stuff it finds in the Constitution, and why they don't seem to recogize the clauses that seem obvious to me :-) The OSD is an attempt to formally define Free Software (*). It was never meant, I believe, to be a list of restrictions on licenses. If the definition is too broad, then it allows in licenses that are not Free Software licenses, and if it is too narrow then it could exclude some Free Software licenses. Then there is always the possibility that registration fees never occured to the authors of the OSD. You need to remember that Free Software and the OSD came out of the Unix milieu, where shareware is all but unheard of, despite its prominence in the DOS and Windows community. At least one of the annotations (Rationale sections) could be expanded to clarify that that is the intention of whichever clause has the effect of limiting this action. I would agree with this. Similar questions have arisen before, indicating there is some confusion out there. It's much add to a rationale than to add to a clause. (*) Oh, will I catch Hell for that statement... -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
