2013/10/11 Eric Schwarzenbach <[email protected]> > On Friday, October 11, 2013 8:25:01 AM UTC-4, Lukas Eder wrote: > >> Hi Eric, >> >> 2013/10/10 Eric Schwarzenbach <[email protected]> >> >> Actually I've been assuming something about how this license works, that >>> I should verify: >>> >>> Suppose I've written a piece of software using JOOQ (and say it uses the >>> JOOQ Runtime module for execution) and sell this product to buy 5 companies >>> that will use it with Oracle. Does this mean that either they each have to >>> buy a JOOQ licence, or I have to buy those licenses and include them with >>> my product? I've been assuming that my buying a single license does not >>> cover me for however many copies of it I sell and get deployed on my >>> customers servers. >>> >>> Is this right or am I misinterpreting? >>> >> >> The jOOQ license is a developer Workstation license. If you're the only >> developer on your product, and your product is used only with Oracle, then >> you can buy a single "jOOQ Professional Edition" license regardless of the >> number of your customers. However, you may not sublicense or redistribute >> jOOQ, i.e. you may not make it available to your customers. Otherwise, they >> too (or you) would have to buy additional Workstation licenses. >> >> I believe that the additional cost of using jOOQ in licensed software >> products is negligible, the more customers you have. This is comparable to >> ZKoss, a popular UI framework who are selling developer licenses ( >> http://www.zkoss.org/price/**pricing <http://www.zkoss.org/price/pricing> >> ) >> > > I think my confusion centers around that "redistribute jOOQ" part. When > you say "workstation license" I think of a tool like IntelliJ. Obviously > when I develop code with IntelliJ my customers don't have to buy a license > to it also when they use my software, however I don't need to redistribute > any part of IntelliJ with my software. However if I use JOOQ to develop a > piece of software, I generally will need to include some JOOQ libraries > packaged with my code, say for example in the WEB-INF/lib folder inside a > war file. While I don't expect my customers to extract your jars from my > software package and develop code with it, still I have redistributed these > JOOQ jars to them. > > I think you may have a different understanding of the word redistribute > than I do. Perhaps mine is flawed, but what really matters, I guess is what > lawyers will understand from the terms of the license. >
Fair point. I will have to review this term with my lawyer. From my understanding, the term distribution is not 100% clear. Everyone agrees that Data Geekery distributes jOOQ. But I think that not everyone would agree that Data Geekery customers redistribute jOOQ, if they manage to "hide" it inside their application. While "hiding" is difficult technically, it is simple, legally. Others claim that making jOOQ available via services (e.g. over the net) is also a form of redistribution. Prohibiting that, of course, is not at all my intent. > Are you saying that your license allows me to include you jars with my > software and my customers to run that software without buying additional > licenses? > Yes. Only those *developers* who run the software on their *developer workstations* need to buy a license. This is set out more precisely in the annex: *2.1.1 Workstation * All of the above price plans charge a Subscription Fee only for developer Workstations, not for server Workstations. A developer Workstation may only be accessed by one user at a time. I have chosen this approach because I think that the biggest added value is added at development time, not at run time - as opposed to a database, which is most likely sold using server licenses. In addition, I did not want to tie the license to the actual developer, such that new team members may inherit licenses from old ones. Workstation licenses are often also referred to as seat licenses. This is what I'm offering right now. I don't exclude offering server licenses in a way similar to what Witold has suggested earlier this thread. But I do not want to engage in too many complex licensing models right now. > (If so, I'm very happy and the concerns I have been expressing have been > over-inflated.) > I am happy to hear that! :-) Clearly, initial feedback from this discussion will have to be reviewed with my lawyer. Then, next week, I shall write a small FAQ explaining common concerns with the license model. Cheers Lukas -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
