Re: [License-discuss] Protecting database integrity

[Grahame Grieve]

you can do the same - you can release the code under open source license,
but use the trademark to ensure certain policies are followed.

The community will probably ignore your code if they don't like the
policies.

Grahame


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 4:18 PM, John Cowan  wrote:

>
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Terrence Bull 
> wrote:
>
> I do wonder how Google makes Android open source yet requires everyone
>> that makes ‘copies’ to be connected to the Play store. Do they have some
>> sort of special open source license they use?
>>
>
> No, the license is straight Apache 2.0, except for the proprietary parts
> that control the radio and the sensors.  Google's leverage over Android
> manufacturers comes from the Android trademark, which they license only to
> OEMs who follow their rules, and from the fact that they give advance
> copies of new releases to those same OEMs.
>
> --
> John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
> Don't be so humble.  You're not that great.
> --Golda Meir
>
>
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>


-- 
-
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grah...@healthintersections.com.au
/ +61 411 867 065
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Protecting database integrity

[John Cowan]

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Terrence Bull  wrote:

I do wonder how Google makes Android open source yet requires everyone that
> makes ‘copies’ to be connected to the Play store. Do they have some sort of
> special open source license they use?
>

No, the license is straight Apache 2.0, except for the proprietary parts
that control the radio and the sensors.  Google's leverage over Android
manufacturers comes from the Android trademark, which they license only to
OEMs who follow their rules, and from the fact that they give advance
copies of new releases to those same OEMs.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
Don't be so humble.  You're not that great.
--Golda Meir
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] Protecting database integrity

[Terrence Bull]

Thanks John,

I think the answer is - as you suggest - make the case for everyone to stay ‘on 
the system’ in the documentation.

The case is basically: if you are ‘in the universal system’ then you will have 
access to lots of new free and cheap apps and add-ons and the ability to 
promote - through the ability to integrate - your business within the community 
of users. Sort of like, it would be a waste of time running your own seperate 
copy of LinkedIn - i.e. what good is a networking tool with no network :-)

We are working hard to enable the ability to distribute the system quickly and 
easily - i.e. installing it on your own server with a simple command line 
statement (e.g.  get woogloo). As part of this we are incorporating full 
database syncing of every new distributed copy back to the ‘central’ database - 
at no cost.

We are also creating an ‘offline’ object that installs on a client (e.g. 
desktop computer or mobile device) with full peer-to-peer capability so that 
data can be selectively synced to only those people who have permission to 
access that data - i.e. the data will not even pass through the central 
server’s database and will be fully encrypted end-to-end.

Given that there is no-cost for being within the ‘universal system’ and that 
there is ample ability to isolate your data/system where required, we cannot 
see any possible advantage of not being a part of the whole. Our reason for 
wanting to ‘protect’ the integrity of the system is guarding against the 
insanely ignorant - which we have had lots of experience with over the years 
since we have lots of clients working with IT people in third world countries.

I do wonder how Google makes Android open source yet requires everyone that 
makes ‘copies’ to be connected to the Play store. Do they have some sort of 
special open source license they use?

Anyway, thanks for your help.

Kind Regards,

Terrence Bull
(aka: Bob Woofix)
CEO/Founder

NZ HB: 06-876 9201
M: 021-088 52 847
E: terre...@woogloo.com
W: www.woogloo.com
Skype: bob.woofix 

Bob says: “Woogloo V3: the power to dream!”

All information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended only for the designated addressee and cannot be 
passed on to any third party without the express written consent of Woogloo. If 
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or 
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be 
Unlawful.

> On 6/03/2017, at 4:12 PM, John Cowan  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Terrence Bull  > wrote:
> 
> I want to release the software for everyone to use - however, It is important 
> that someone doesn’t simply ‘disconnect’ their copy of the database as this 
> will screw with the integrity of the ‘universal’ nature of the system.
> 
> I don't see that any sort of _public_ license, open-source or not, will work. 
>  You will have to get every user to sign a contract to that effect, along 
> with preventing all redistribution, and there is of course no way to do that 
> consistently with the Open Source Definition.
> 
> What are your motives for preventing people from running disconnected copies 
> of the program, or for that matter separate networks of copies?  If it is 
> commercial advantage, that's one thing, and you should go with a 
> closed-souroce scheme.  If it is a "commons" argument (everyone is better off 
> if there's just One Big Network), then you should make the case in your 
> documentation.  Most people use a public blockchain, for good and sufficient 
> reasons, but there is nothing stopping anyone from setting up their own 
> blockchains, and people do if they have use for it.
> 
> -- 
> John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan 
> co...@ccil.org 
> The native charset of SMS messages supports English, French, mainland
> Scandinavian languages, German, Italian, Spanish with no accents, and
> GREEK SHOUTING.  Everything else has to be Unicode, which means you get
> only 70 16-bit characters in a text instead of 160 7-bit characters.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [License-discuss] Protecting database integrity

[John Cowan]

On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Terrence Bull  wrote:

I want to release the software for everyone to use - however, It is
> important that someone doesn’t simply ‘disconnect’ their copy of the
> database as this will screw with the integrity of the ‘universal’ nature of
> the system.
>

I don't see that any sort of _public_ license, open-source or not, will
work.  You will have to get every user to sign a contract to that effect,
along with preventing all redistribution, and there is of course no way to
do that consistently with the Open Source Definition.

What are your motives for preventing people from running disconnected
copies of the program, or for that matter separate networks of copies?  If
it is commercial advantage, that's one thing, and you should go with a
closed-souroce scheme.  If it is a "commons" argument (everyone is better
off if there's just One Big Network), then you should make the case in your
documentation.  Most people use a public blockchain, for good and
sufficient reasons, but there is nothing stopping anyone from setting up
their own blockchains, and people do if they have use for it.

-- 
John Cowan  http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org
The native charset of SMS messages supports English, French, mainland
Scandinavian languages, German, Italian, Spanish with no accents, and
GREEK SHOUTING.  Everything else has to be Unicode, which means you get
only 70 16-bit characters in a text instead of 160 7-bit characters.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

[License-discuss] Protecting database integrity

[Terrence Bull]

Hi,

I am wanting to open source our project - a browser based development 
environment. However, it has a unique feature - much of the code is in the 
database and there is a universal User ID to make integration (between apps 
inside a business and business-to-business) quickly and easily possible. It 
also has an ‘App’ store where people can monetise their work.

We are putting full database syncing capabilities on the system so all copies 
of the database are synced - where data is ‘non-private’. The database is an H2 
database with native encryption so almost impossible to hack - or see - private 
data anyway.

I want to release the software for everyone to use - however, It is important 
that someone doesn’t simply ‘disconnect’ their copy of the database as this 
will screw with the integrity of the ‘universal’ nature of the system.

Can anyone help me with what needs to be considered in terms of what open 
source license to use and if it needs some sort of modification to ensure the 
system's longterm integrity?

Thanks for your help in advance.

Kind Regards,

Terrence Bull
(aka: Bob Woofix)
CEO/Founder



NZ HB: 06-876 9201
M: 021-088 52 847
E: terre...@woogloo.com
W: www.woogloo.com
Skype: bob.woofix 

Bob says: “Woogloo V3: the power to dream!”

All information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended only for the designated addressee and cannot be 
passed on to any third party without the express written consent of Woogloo. If 
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or 
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be 
Unlawful.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss