I considered the MongdoDB example. One interesting aspect of MongoDB is that while the *server* is AGPL, the *drivers* are Apache. This helps to make it straight-forward from a use/licensing standpoint. If I create mongodb++ as you describe, I'm bound to AGPL, but if I run it verbatim, and connect to it with the official drivers, then I'm not bound by AGPL and am free to build a proprietary product. I don't think such an arrangement is being suggested here.
The pro-forma idea is interesting, and certainly helps to mitigate the barriers for entry for commercial applications. On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Fergal Byrne <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Austin, > > The best example of this is MongoDB, which operates under the AGPL for > this reason. I cannot take MongoDB on its own, modify it in some way (let's > say by incorporating a new caching algorithm) and then market it as my own > MongoDB++. I also couldn't provide MongoDB++ as a service without providing > full source to my mods. > > I also raised your other point with Donna, about using NuPIC as a back end > for some software service. As far as I can tell, you could simply build an > API layer on NuPIC and release only that under (A)GPL, while keeping your > client app completely closed. Since your code is only a "user" of NuPIC, > this would fall outside the AGPL per se. You would however then be in the > territory of building technology using Numenta-patented IP, so it'd be wise > to think about talking to Donna at that point. > > On your comments re bootstrapping to an MVP using NuPIC, would it make > sense for Numenta to develop a "pro-forma" precommercial license, with a > timeout such as 12 months? This way, you can notify Numenta that you are > likely to want to negotiate a commercial license, but they give you a year > to get to that point at no cost. In the event you get no traction, just > Open Source your code and you're good. > > Regards, > > Fergal Byrne > > -- > > Fergal Byrne, Brenter IT > > Author, Real Machine Intelligence with Clortex and NuPIC > https://leanpub.com/realsmartmachines > > Speaking on Clortex and HTM/CLA at euroClojure Krakow, June 2014: > http://euroclojure.com/2014/ > and at LambdaJam Chicago, July 2014: http://www.lambdajam.com > > http://inbits.com - Better Living through Thoughtful Technology > http://ie.linkedin.com/in/fergbyrne/ - https://github.com/fergalbyrne > > e:[email protected] t:+353 83 4214179 > Join the quest for Machine Intelligence at http://numenta.org > Formerly of Adnet [email protected] http://www.adnet.ie > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Austin Marshall <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >> >
