Thanks Matthew Richard
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Matthew Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard, > > No, this change should not affect you at all. > --------- > Matt Taylor > OS Community Flag-Bearer > Numenta > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 7:47 PM, email email <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, Matthew, > > > > I would like to know if the license changes research students or fellow > like > > me will not download and study the source code? or develop our own > research > > programs on the base of NuPIC? > > > > Thanks for your response > > > > Richard > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Fergal Byrne < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> My view as someone working to make a living using and extending HTM > >> technology is very simple. If you stay in (A)GPL-land, you're completely > >> free. If you build something for private use or on behalf of a single > >> client, you're good (you may transfer the responsibility to your client > if > >> they're making money). Otherwise contact Numenta. > >> > >> There will be billion dollar businesses based on HTM in the next few > >> years. Those businesses should repay Jeff and Donna for the money and > effort > >> they invested to start this. > >> > >> There is huge debate in Deep Learning right now about Google's decision > to > >> try and patent several key ideas, many of which go back decades. So > it's not > >> just us. > >> > >> 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 6:21 PM, Austin Marshall <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > >
