I see a couple of issues with the AGPL. The wording of AGPL is absolute regarding "all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network". This may become a barrier for anyone potentially interested in a commercial license later. For example, in Lean Startup parlance, I may want to experiment with a minimum viable product to gauge interest before investing too much effort into developing a commercial product. If I'm not already planning on using AGPL (very few do), I'm forced to consider the implications before I start my experimentation. Personally, I'd rather not have to worry about it -- I'd want to get users on my mvp as early as possible and not have to delay the process with commercial license negotiations, especially since I'd be at a disadvantage, not having any experience with the technology and not having much of an opportunity to make an informed estimate of the commercial viability. Google has even taken a stand and outright banned AGPL-licensed software for internal use ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/31/google_on_open_source_licenses/). I find that position to be reasonable, and I'm sure they are not alone.
I'm also skeptical about the enforceability the AGPL with respect to closing the loophole. Let's say I want to get my product out and either don't want to seek out a commercial license or don't want to do it *now*. I might argue that, in many ways, you can incorporate nupic into your tech stack and not be required to share your source. For example, let's say I have a product that makes recommendations, and behind the scenes I use nupic in some small part of an ensemble. If this process is done in an offline/batch mode on behalf of the user and only the results conveyed to the user, then I might argue that my user has no interaction with nupic, and therefore my service is not subject to the virality of the AGPL. In other words, I'm either likely to avoid it like the plague, or try to get crafty. I'm not convinced that the AGPL helps in the long term adoption of nupic and related software, from either free or commercial licensing standpoints. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Matthew Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Good questions... > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Dean Horak <[email protected]> wrote: > > How does a project transition from GPLv3 to a different license, when > all the existing code has already been released as GPLv3. I assume that the > GPLv3 license will remain in effect for all existing code, and only new > code specifically contributed by Numenta specifically identified as AGPL > will be affected by this. > > Correct. The NuPIC (and related) code that currently exists on Github, > and all the history of that code, is GPLv3. There is nothing we can do > about that, it will always be GPLv3. When we change the license to > AGPLv3, from that point forward, the repository and all future > developments in the repo will be AGPLv3. So there will be a line drawn > in time at the commit SHA when we make the license change. > > > But what about community contributed code? Surely Numenta cannot force > the community to adopt AGPLv3 should they choose not to since Numenta is > technically only a contributor (albeit the prime contributor) as well and > not the "owner" of the codebase. > > Actually, Numenta is the sole copyright owner of the NuPIC codebase, > and the copyright owner has control over the license of the code. This > means that Numenta, as the copyright owner, has the legal right to > change the license without input from any contributors, because all > contributors signed our Contributor License Agreement [1] that signs > over all their copyright of their contributions to Numenta. > > > Do contributors have the option of choosing AGPLv3 or GPLv3? I suppose > a vote from the community to adopt AGPLv3 for all future code could be > enforced by the committers - only allowing AGPLv3 code into the codebase, > but this seemingly could lead to a fork of the code, which is probably not > a desirable outcome at this point. > > No, contributors will not get a choice in the matter. If this codebase > were copyright many authors, a vote would be necessary to change the > license. But because Numenta is the sole copyright owner, a vote is > unnecessary. We do, however, care what our contributors think about > licenses, and we certainly to not make such changes wantonly. > > > Again, I do not expect that this will have any real impact on me, but in > the spirit of clarity and transparency, I think response to these types of > questions should be considered. > > I am happy to answer any more questions. > > [1] http://numenta.org/licenses/cl > --------- > Matt Taylor > OS Community Flag-Bearer > Numenta > >
