license idea
Hi, I'm the author of a PHP-based webmail client called IlohaMail (http://ilohamail.org) currently released under the GPL, and am considering offering my software under a license that would maintain its free (as in speech) nature but not necessarily be free (as in beer) in certain circumstances. Basically, what I had in mind was: 1) Individuals, and non-profit/academic institutions are granted usage under GPL-like terms 2) For-profit organizations may re-distribute the software, however if they charge more than a reasonable "distribution" fee, they must pay royalties to the project. 3) For-profit organizations that deploy or distribute a modified version of the software must either: a) contribute changes back to the project -OR- b) pay a license fee The basic idea is to make the relationship between corporate users and open source developers more reciprocal, while maintaining the spirit of open source. If corporations receive software from open source developers that allow them to add value to their services, then they should reciprocate in some way. Some of the questions I have are: 1) Are there re-usable licenses like this out there? 2) Would this conflict with the Open Source Definition? 3) Where can I get help writing licenses? Thanks, Ryo Chijiiwa ilohamail.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license idea
On 7/16/2003, "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2) For-profit organizations may re-distribute the software, however if >> they charge more than a reasonable "distribution" fee, they must pay >> royalties to the project. > >free as in speech? Not only individual are free to speech. Why you discriminate >organizations? >Surely not free (5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups) Isn't that a lot like saying income taxes are descriminatory because it only applies to a particular group of people (i.e. people with a certain amount of income)? >2. Not effective. profit organization A has the option: pay a license >or contribute. It chooses to send you a minimal patch (e.g. style), >thus now A is free to use you code and You will flooded by unimportant >patched. I wouldn't mind being flooded with patches, if indeed that were to happen. I probably wouldn't use most of them, but maybe someone else will. Either way, more code will be available to anyone who wants it. >I have questions: >If I contribute to your code [1) or 2)], then you share with me the gain >of selling licenses? No. Your contribution is in return for using my software. So you contribute, and we're even. >And if I made big modifications (with a lot of added value)? If you don't want to give up your code, you can just pay the license fee. If you don't like the license fee, then you use some other package. Personally, if I do charge a license fee, it won't be much at all. Consider this: $50 for a corporation is nothing, but for me, that's 1-2 weeks' worth of food. At the end of the day, if they don't think the software's even worth that much, they really shouldn't be using it anyway. >So: don't use such license. Try to check the various licenses of >the QT and MYSQL (but warning, normal user patches should be considered GPL, >you cannot relicense or sell modified version, without consensus from author) Thanks, I'll take a look at those. Ryo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license idea
On 7/16/2003, "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: >> >>> 2) For-profit organizations may re-distribute the software, however if >>> they charge more than a reasonable "distribution" fee, they must pay >>> royalties to the project. >> >>[...] >> Surely not free (5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups) > >oops. wrong paragraph: 6 not 5 > >""" >6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > >The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a >specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from >being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. My intention is not to "restrict anyone from making use" of the software. All I'm trying to do is require commercial entities to reciprocate, to give back in return for using (and profiting from) open source software. Ryo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license idea (revised)
Thanks for all your comments. I see that my initial proposal did not fit the Open Source Definition as outlined by OSI. I apologize for my lack of research in that regard. I have since reassessed my needs, and here is a revised proposal. Would it be possible to have a license identical to the GPL, except one which has provisions for deployment of software, rather than the distribution of binary executables? Web-base applications written in languages like PHP do not have binary distributions. However, the act of deploying web applications, that is, the act of making a software available for use by others, is analogous to the distribution of compiled binaries. As such, I believe web-applications should be warranted similar provisions as those offered to binary executables under the GPL. Here's a case in point. My software by default has a link to the project website in the login page, which is the only "branding" in the whole interface. Consider a case where an organization deploys the software with that link replaced with a link to its own website. I believe this is identical to re-branding an existing software package and distributing it (since the project gets no credit, and the end users won't know what they're using). Under the GPL, a vendor who redistributes rebranded binaries would be required to also make the source code available, however, an organization that deploys a rebranded version of my software would not be required to do so (if my interpretation is correct). This is troublesome not just because of branding, but also because I've noticed organizations making significant proprietary changes to the software, which aren't available to the community (which I think runs counter to the spirit of the GPL). Also, if a license required organizations deploying modified versions of my software to make the source code available, it is possible that some organizations would prefer to persue alternative licenses, providing me with a potential revenue source. In effect, a license identical to the GPL, but one which replaces "distribution of binaries" with "deployment of the software" would be ideal. Would that work? Thanks, Ryo Chijiiwa -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license idea (revised)
On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and >distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution. Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was one of the basic requirements in that license. >This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the heading "ASP >loophole". Thanks, I'll look for that. >One interesting question is where to draw the line between use >and "deployment". This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP that >includes open-source code. Do I have the right to that code? I agree that this is a grey area. However, one difference between web-applications and server software is the level at which users interact with them, and who the intended users are. Server software like web servers and mail servers don't have interfaces for end users because that's not the intended audience. The intended users are administrators, and as such, they have various mechanisms that allow for interaction. On the other hand, web-applications have distinct interfaces designed specifically for end users, not just for the administrators who install and maintain them. >My strong recommendation: Ignore antisocial users (whether they be >individuals or corporations). The community has it's own strengths, the >vast majority of which come from freely-chosen cooperation. Trying to >make software less useful in order to protect your revenue or brand is >misguided. I'm not sure I agree that what I'm trying to do makes the software less useful. If requiring users of a modified software to have access to the source code makes it "less useful", then the GPL itself would make software "less useful" since it has the same requirements (again, as I interpret it). Of course, opponents of the GPL would probably say that's the case, but I think that's irrelevant in this topic (because GPL is already an OSI approved license). Ryo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license idea (revised)
On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andy Tai wrote: > >> Maybe you are looking for is the AGPL, >> >> http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html > >I don't see this on the opensource.org list, and I hope not to. Debian has >expressed objections to this license as well. > >IMO, this is not a free software license. Their FAQ (http://www.affero.org/oagf.html) mentions that the license "should" be compatible with GPL 3.0, and may be used as a replacement. However, I haven't found any information on GPL 3.0 anywhere, so I have no idea about the validity of their claims. Perhaps someone here would know? Ryo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license idea (revised)
On 7/16/2003, "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ryo Chijiiwa scripsit: > >> On 7/16/2003, "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >I don't think that most agree that the requirement to give source and >> >distribution rights to all users is an acceptible solution. >> >> Perhaps my interpretation of the GPL is incorrect, but I thought that was >> one of the basic requirements in that license. > >No. The GPL requires only that anyone who gets a modified binary gets >modified source as well. It does not require that you deliver modified >source to anyone on demand. I may make changes to my GPLed software, and >as long as I don't distribute the binary, I can keep the source to myself. And we go in circles :-) What I'm saying is that users of modified versions of my software should have access to the source code, the same way users of modified GPL executables have access to the code. I don't think that my software being made available for use by others through a network instead of binary distributions should give it a different treatment under the same license. But it does, and that's why I'm looking for alternatives. Ryo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: license idea (revised)
On 7/16/2003, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Server software like web servers and mail servers don't have interfaces >> for end users because that's not the intended audience. > >Of course they are. End users use the http and smtp interfaces of such >servers every day. They are intended for end-users. Most end-users use >some sort of browser or MTA to use the software, but isn't that what >you're talking about with your package as well? The thing is, my package is an MUA that builds the UI on top of HTTP. It's client software, that happens to run on a server. But perhaps it's more of an intuitive distinction than a logical one, and apparently, one that's very much open for debate. Ryo -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: license idea (revised)
Thanks. The license was suggested to me off list by someone as well, and apart from FSF having issues with it (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html), it seems like it fulfills most of my needs. I'll present this to my users and see what they say. Thanks again to everyone for your comments. Ryo On 7/16/2003, "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The Open Software License deals with ASP use as follows: > > 5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" means > the use or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works > in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be > used by anyone other than You, whether the Original Work or > Derivative Works are distributed to those persons or made available > as an application intended for use over a computer network. As an > express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You agree > that any External Deployment by You of a Derivative Work shall be > deemed a distribution and shall be licensed to all under the terms > of this License, as prescribed in section 1(c) herein. > >/Larry Rosen > >> -Original Message- >> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 2:31 PM >> To: Mark Rafn >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: license idea (revised) >> >> >> Mark Rafn scripsit: >> >> > This has been discussed a bit on debian-legal, under the >> heading "ASP >> > loophole". One interesting question is where to draw the >> line between >> > use and "deployment". This e-mail was routed along a box at my ISP >> > that includes open-source code. Do I have the right to that code? >> >> There is also the question of the line between deployment and >> private use. Suppose I am a consultant of some sort and I >> accept people's questions in the form of encrypted emails, >> which contain the question and a credit card number. I then >> research the answer (or pull it out of my butt), charge the >> credit card, and reply. I am essentially acting as a slow ASP. >> >> Am I obliged to publish all changes that I make to any OSS >> which I use in my business? Presumably not; the right to >> make private changes is protected by (AFAIK) all open-source >> licenses including the GPL. Deploying software in an ASP is >> not IMHO essentially different; it is use, not publication. >> >> -- >> We call nothing profound >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan >> --Northrop Frye (improved) >> http://www.reutershealth.com >> -- >> license-discuss archive is at >> http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 >> > >-- >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
