Re: open-source x free software
Hi John, Just a little question: 1) The freedom to study the source code and adapt it to your needs 3) The freedom to improve the program and release your improvements publicly Freedoms 1 and 3 imply that the source code is freely accessible. When you mean freely accessible, does it means that we can't charge for downloads? regards guich -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: open-source x free software
When you mean freely accessible, does it means that we can't charge for downloads? No, you can charge all you want, but since your customers can freely redistribute your code, you'd better offer offer your paid users something extra so they want to give you money. Suggestions: - Support services - Installation help - Private servers that get new releases faster than free mirrors - Voluntary, shareware-style registration - Sell documention Some companies also produce side by side open source and commercial products. OpenOffice is free and freely redistributable, but StarOffice costs money and is not freely redistributable even though it's based on OO code. StarOffice comes with support, documention, and several features OO lacks -- and plenty of companies and at least a few individuals seem to be buying it. - Robin 'Roblimo' Miller professional troublemaker -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
used with their permission. The permission required is described um, i think this could be misunderstood. you don't need thier *permission* you need to meet the guidelines that they require. this does not require written permission per se (at least that I can find) as long as you are distributing your code under an existing OSI License. what does require involvement with the OSI board is a *new* license. which Gluecode would need to do to use the OSI cert for either of licenses (doubtful). Clay On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 16:57, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Guilherme C. Hazan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What we need to do to place the logo at our site? Just get it and put in the html? The logo is trademarked by the Open Source Initiative. It may only be used with their permission. The permission required is described here: http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php It may be that gluecode is using the trademark without following the required permissions. If so, that would be unlawful. An official representative of the Open Source Initiative should contact them to check. Ian -- 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
Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
Alex Rousskov wrote: Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD license text titled Foo Open License v1.2? I suppose that might be: Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved license is an infringement of OSI's certification marks and is against the law. Found at: http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php Does OSI certified mark usage terms allow placing the mark on a site that distributes open and not open software? I have no idea. On the other hand, the image in question is found at: http://www.gluecode.com/website/images_home/osi-certified.gif But at: http://opensource.org/trademarks/ It is stated: We insist and ask that you link to the images of your choice instead of saving it on your own server. So obviously Gluecode has saved the image to its own server, against what was expressly stated at opensource.org As to the legal implications of that, I am not qualified to speculate. Eugene Wee -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
On Sat, 8 May 2004, Eugene Wee wrote: Alex Rousskov wrote: Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD license text titled Foo Open License v1.2? I suppose that might be: Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved license is an infringement of OSI's certification marks and is against the law. Found at: http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php To interpret the above, one needs to know whether OSI approves the license text, the license title, or a combination of both (i.e., the core question you stripped). Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under condition X, vendor Y is not authorized to use the mark, vendor Y must follow that determination or risk infringing the mark. At this point, your question is really more straightforward than the one you posed, I think. You want to know: whether developer/vendor/whomever is authorized to use the mark. Rod On Fri, 7 May 2004, Alex Rousskov wrote: On Sat, 8 May 2004, Eugene Wee wrote: Alex Rousskov wrote: Where does it say that OSI certified mark cannot be used with a BSD license text titled Foo Open License v1.2? I suppose that might be: Use of these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved license is an infringement of OSI's certification marks and is against the law. Found at: http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php To interpret the above, one needs to know whether OSI approves the license text, the license title, or a combination of both (i.e., the core question you stripped). Alex. -- 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
Which OS license should we use?
Hi there - We are building a professional open source company and are curious which open source license you suggest we use. Our goal is to build a profitable company around dual licensing - providing an open source version of our product and a commercial version of the product. We feel that a software company built around an open source product will first significantly reduce our sales and marketing costs. Second, we expect the open source version will greatly reduce barriers-to-entry to our product from both a partner ecosystem perspective and more importantly a customer acquisition perspective. Finally, we flat out believe that delivering an open source product will enable users/customers to have a more direct voice in the building of the product which will result in a better product. We plan to translate this combination of factors into a lower cost product offering that will delight end-users. Our goals for the open source license and commercial license are: 1. Enable partners and customers to easily enhance/enrich/expand the product through GPL-like conditions 2. Allow our company to roll 'contributed open source code' into our commercial release. What do you think about the Mozilla Public License? Or the eCos open source license ( http://ecos.sourceware.org/license-overview.html http://ecos.sourceware.org/license-overview.html) 3. The ability to sell our open source code line as a commercial release a. With additional modules contributed to our open source project b. With additional value-add modules not in the open source product c. With full support, maintenance, warranty and indemnification So with that said, which open source license do you think best meets those goals? I appreciate your advice. Clint Clint Oram Co-Founder and VP Products Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 315-6321 SUGARCRM Inc. It's a sweet deal. Startup in residence at the SDForum http://www.sdforum.org/ http://www.sdforum.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Why open-source means free to distribute?
Rod Dixon scripsit: I think Larry will have to answer your question authoritatively. In my opinion, the distinctions assumed by your question are impertinent. OSI has the legal authority to control the use of its certification trade mark within the parameters it sets forth. If they say under condition X, vendor Y is not authorized to use the mark, vendor Y must follow that determination or risk infringing the mark. Doubtless, but it's not clear whether the title of a license is an essential part of the license. If I take an OSI-certified license and change just the title, is the resulting license still OSI-certified? -- May the hair on your toes never fall out! John Cowan --Thorin Oakenshield (to Bilbo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which OS license should we use?
Clint, I'd be *shocked* if anyone on license-discuss was willing to give you free legal advice. You need to consult a lawyer about this (you'll probably get a number of contacts at least from your email). In general, you need to figure out what your business goals are and then consult with a lawyer to find the best license choices for your particular goals. Dual-licensing is a means to an end which several other companies have used successfully but much depends on the composition of your codebase, the market conditions you are dealing with, the types of partners you wish to attract, etc. Danese Cooper Clint Oram wrote: Hi there - We are building a professional open source company and are curious which open source license you suggest we use. Our goal is to build a profitable company around dual licensing - providing an open source version of our product and a commercial version of the product. We feel that a software company built around an open source product will first significantly reduce our sales and marketing costs. Second, we expect the open source version will greatly reduce barriers-to-entry to our product from both a partner ecosystem perspective and more importantly a customer acquisition perspective. Finally, we flat out believe that delivering an open source product will enable users/customers to have a more direct voice in the building of the product which will result in a better product. We plan to translate this combination of factors into a lower cost product offering that will delight end-users. Our goals for the open source license and commercial license are: 1. Enable partners and customers to easily enhance/enrich/expand the product through GPL-like conditions 2. Allow our company to roll 'contributed open source code' into our commercial release. What do you think about the Mozilla Public License? Or the eCos open source license ( http://ecos.sourceware.org/license-overview.html http://ecos.sourceware.org/license-overview.html) 3. The ability to sell our open source code line as a commercial release a. With additional modules contributed to our open source project b. With additional value-add modules not in the open source product c. With full support, maintenance, warranty and indemnification So with that said, which open source license do you think best meets those goals? I appreciate your advice. Clint Clint Oram Co-Founder and VP Products Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 315-6321 SUGARCRM Inc. It's a sweet deal. Startup in residence at the SDForum http://www.sdforum.org/ http://www.sdforum.org -- 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
Re: Which OS license should we use?
Clint Oram scripsit: Our goals for the open source license and commercial license are: 1. Enable partners and customers to easily enhance/enrich/expand the product through GPL-like conditions 2. Allow our company to roll 'contributed open source code' into our commercial release. What do you think about the Mozilla Public License? Certainly the MPL was designed for just this purpose. You will need to get copyright transfers or licenses for the contributions, however. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.reutershealth.com Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U. --K.X.U. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Adaptive Public License v0.1C
Based on the suggestions I have been given, I have modified the Adaptive Public License and have re-posted it as version 0.1C. http://mamook.net/APL.html The following changes were made: - One sentence within section 3.2 did not conform to the rules of Open Source. The sentence has been modified (as previously discussed) in order to conform. A Distributor may choose to distribute the Licensed Work, or any portion thereof, in Executable form (an EXECUTABLE DISTRIBUTION) to any third party, under the terms of Section 2 of this License, provided the Executable Distribution is made available under and accompanied by a copy of this License ***and is distributed at no more than the cost of physically performing Executable Distribution***, AND provided at least ONE of the following conditions is fulfilled: (section between '***' marks was removed) - The timeframe of thirty-six months for Subsequent Contributors to make their source available was considered too lengthy. It has been modified to twelve months (section 3.1a). A Subsequent Contributor shall make that Subsequent Contributor's Subsequent Work(s) available to the public via an Electronic Distribution Mechanism for a period of at least ***twelve (12)*** months. The aforesaid ***twelve (12)*** month period shall begin within a reasonable time after the creation of the Subsequent Work and no later than sixty (60) days after first distribution of that Subsequent Contributor's Subsequent Work. (sections between '***' marks modified from 36 to 12 months) I invite further discussion and hope this license is now suitable for OSI approval. --Carmen Leeming -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
