Re: [License-discuss] System 76's BeanBooks Public License v1.0
On 9/18/2013 4:08 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote: On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, John Cowan wrote: Sec. 4.3 strikes me as actually conceptually somewhat interesting, inasmuch as many commercial lawyers have argued that this type of clause is often implicit in software that contains a protect trademark embedded in the software and not removed by a downstream licensee. In this case, however, Section 4.2 prevents you from removing the protected trademark. Taking the two clauses together, you are effectively prevented from making commercial use of the software without paying for the trademark license, which obviously contravenes clauses 6 and 7 of the OSD. So this license is on its face not Open Source. It says: 4.3 - Commercial distribution of the Software requires a trademark license agreement and you may be required to pay. Using the Software within a corporation or entity is not considered commercial distribution. This license does not grant You rights to use any party's name, logo, or trademarks, except solely as necessary to comply with Section 4.2. Wouldn't the except solely as necessary to comply with section 4.2 clause make it okay? Section 4.2 prevents you from removing the protected trademark, and section 4.3 allows you to use the trademark under those circumstances. I believe the restriction in 4.3 violates the OSD, specifically OSD 5 or 6 (but you all have much more experience with how each of these are interpreted, so perhaps you will disagree). 4.2 applies to the use of the trademarks in the software only, but 4.3 tries to restrict use of the trademarks more broadly in a commercial context. As an example, trademark law allows the resale of genuine product without any kind of license. So in the open source context, I should be able to take unaltered software and state on my website and in advertising materials that I am distributing the genuine software. It appears to me that this provision tries to prohibit this lawful use by contractually requiring a license for it. So it treats a commercial enterprise differently from a non-commercial enterprise (whatever that distinction is because I'm not sure); if I am non-commercial I can advertise that I distribute the software but if I am commercial I can't without paying for a trademark license. In my opinion, if there is no statement in a license about trademarks then the assumption should be there is no trademark license. Some licenses, like the Apache license, say the same thing expressly, to avoid any question (I think a good practice). What happens then in both these cases is that use of the trademark by anyone is a matter of whether it is a lawful use or not. But this license goes further than that by arguably prohibiting lawful uses too. Pam Pamela S. Chestek, Esq. Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] we need a new license for earning money
currently our IntarS ERP Software is released under GPL. But we want to be able obtain license fees from bigger commercial users. That's not possible with GPL or any other OSI approved license since it is a restriction to free use. Since we neither want to dual license nor Open Core we've created a draft expressing our thoughts of a new sort of license. We think it adresses a common issue and differs effectively very little from an OSI compliant license. So I'd like to share our thoughts: Maybe it is possible to add such an extension to the OSI Open Source Definition? Or create a new class of approved liceneses? Or at least coin a name for this sort of license? Here's the draft: // IntarS 7 ERP Framework // Author 1996-2013 Pirmin Braun // all Rights granted to and reserved by IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH // Am Hofbrauhaus 1 - 96450 Coburg - GERMANY // http://www.intars.de i...@intars.de // licensed under IntarS Open Source Commercial License --- IntarS Open Source Commercial License (IOSCL) --- Preamble Short Version: you can think of the IOSCL as the LGPL (tm) with license fees for bigger companies. It gives you all the freedoms, the GPL (tm) is meant for: - the freedom to use the software for any purpose, - the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, - the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and - the freedom to share the changes you make. But additionally it gives you and us the freedom to earn money based on heavy usage. As professional services are accepted to pay for, framework development is not. The Open Source idea of community development didn't work for the IntarS ERP framework. Framework development had to happen in spare time and at night and we had to hire professional programmers. While the license fees will be low enough not to hurt bigger companies, they will help paying further framework development. Also the certified IntarS Partners and other creators of derived work will benefit as they now may create their own price list for usage of their branch solutions. Your Rights === IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH grants you the right to use, redistribute, modify IntarS, create and/or distribute a derived work based on IntarS under these Conditions == Redistributions of source code of IntarS or a derived work must retain the above copyright notice and this License. Redistributions in binary form of IntarS or a derived work must reproduce the above copyright notice and this License in a convenient manner. A derived work must provide the information, that it is based on IntarS and that the contained IntarS is licensed under this license. Usage of IntarS is free for private users, educational and non commercial organisations. For commercial organisations usage is free for the first 5 concurrent named users. Continued usage by exceeding concurrent named users needs to be licensed in a seperate, written license agreement with IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH. This applies also to the IntarS contained in a derived work. Commercial organisations must immediately send a mail to i...@intars.de to buy required licenses. Termination === Failing to conform to a condition will automatically terminate your rights under this License and constitute a claim for compensation. Clarification = You don't have to redistribute your derived work. If you do, you don't have to distribute source with your derived work. You are free how to license your derived work. For the IntarS contained in the derived work of certified IntarS Partners, IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH takes only 30% of the regular license fee rate from the commercial end users. Special rates apply for SaaS hosters. IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH pays a reward in amount of 10% of the license fee for hints detecting license infringements. IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH pays for contribution to the framework. As of October 2013 The standard license fee for exceeding concurrent named users is one time 900,-- EUR and monthly 10,-- EUR. Disclaimer == IntarS comes with absolutely no warranty of any kind to the extent of applicable law. Use on your own risk. --- end of License --- -- Pirmin Braun - IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH - Am Hofbräuhaus 1 - 96450 Coburg +49 2642 40526292 +49 174 9747584 - skype:pirminb www.intars.de p...@intars.de Geschäftsführer: Pirmin Braun, Ralf Engelhardt Registergericht: Amtsgericht Coburg HRB3136 ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] we need a new license for earning money
On 09/19/2013 05:17 PM, Pirmin Braun wrote: But we want to be able obtain license fees from bigger commercial users. I assume you _know_ that you can sell your software even though you use the GPL or other Open Source License. That's not possible with GPL or any other OSI approved license since it is a restriction to free use. And that implies that you were not aware that neither the GPL nor any other Open Source License does not prohibit selling the product. Usage of IntarS is free for private users, educational and non commercial organisations. Define non commercial organization. For commercial organisations usage Define commercial organization. is free for the first 5 concurrent named users. I doubt I'm the only person to see how a firm with 500 employees, all of which use the software, can be in full compliance with the license, without paying the specified license fee. Also wondering why you prohibit organizations that are neither non-commercial ventures, nor commercial ventures from using your product. jonathon -- Email with a status of other than junk, bulk, or list is forwarded to Dave Null, unread. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] we need a new license for earning money
-1 Violation of 1. Free Redistribution5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor (may be) Although you are not asking, you can always free to put on any license term you choose. But if you want OSI blessing, please play by the rule. What you are asking is for OSI to dilute their rules. That is not something I want so see so I vote against. I do not want OSI to create an exception for anyone including myself. Best Regards, Cinly * Don't bother with footer please. I don't read them and will not be bounded by them. It cannot be enforced legally anyway. If it can, then remember this: This footer always triumph yours. On 19 September 2013 18:17, Pirmin Braun p...@intars.de wrote: currently our IntarS ERP Software is released under GPL. But we want to be able obtain license fees from bigger commercial users. That's not possible with GPL or any other OSI approved license since it is a restriction to free use. Since we neither want to dual license nor Open Core we've created a draft expressing our thoughts of a new sort of license. We think it adresses a common issue and differs effectively very little from an OSI compliant license. So I'd like to share our thoughts: Maybe it is possible to add such an extension to the OSI Open Source Definition? Or create a new class of approved liceneses? Or at least coin a name for this sort of license? Here's the draft: // IntarS 7 ERP Framework // Author 1996-2013 Pirmin Braun // all Rights granted to and reserved by IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH // Am Hofbrauhaus 1 - 96450 Coburg - GERMANY // http://www.intars.de i...@intars.de // licensed under IntarS Open Source Commercial License --- IntarS Open Source Commercial License (IOSCL) --- Preamble Short Version: you can think of the IOSCL as the LGPL (tm) with license fees for bigger companies. It gives you all the freedoms, the GPL (tm) is meant for: - the freedom to use the software for any purpose, - the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, - the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and - the freedom to share the changes you make. But additionally it gives you and us the freedom to earn money based on heavy usage. As professional services are accepted to pay for, framework development is not. The Open Source idea of community development didn't work for the IntarS ERP framework. Framework development had to happen in spare time and at night and we had to hire professional programmers. While the license fees will be low enough not to hurt bigger companies, they will help paying further framework development. Also the certified IntarS Partners and other creators of derived work will benefit as they now may create their own price list for usage of their branch solutions. Your Rights === IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH grants you the right to use, redistribute, modify IntarS, create and/or distribute a derived work based on IntarS under these Conditions == Redistributions of source code of IntarS or a derived work must retain the above copyright notice and this License. Redistributions in binary form of IntarS or a derived work must reproduce the above copyright notice and this License in a convenient manner. A derived work must provide the information, that it is based on IntarS and that the contained IntarS is licensed under this license. Usage of IntarS is free for private users, educational and non commercial organisations. For commercial organisations usage is free for the first 5 concurrent named users. Continued usage by exceeding concurrent named users needs to be licensed in a seperate, written license agreement with IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH. This applies also to the IntarS contained in a derived work. Commercial organisations must immediately send a mail to i...@intars.deto buy required licenses. Termination === Failing to conform to a condition will automatically terminate your rights under this License and constitute a claim for compensation. Clarification = You don't have to redistribute your derived work. If you do, you don't have to distribute source with your derived work. You are free how to license your derived work. For the IntarS contained in the derived work of certified IntarS Partners, IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH takes only 30% of the regular license fee rate from the commercial end users. Special rates apply for SaaS hosters. IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH pays a reward in amount of 10% of the license fee for hints detecting license infringements. IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH pays for contribution to the framework. As of October 2013 The standard license fee for exceeding concurrent named users is one time 900,-- EUR and monthly 10,-- EUR. Disclaimer == IntarS comes with absolutely no warranty of any kind to the
Re: [License-discuss] we need a new license for earning money
Pirmin Braun scripsit: So I'd like to share our thoughts: Maybe it is possible to add such an extension to the OSI Open Source Definition? Or create a new class of approved liceneses? Not gonna happen. We believe very strongly in non-discrimination among licensees, and to disadvantage the millionaire is as unethical as to disadvantage the poor. Or at least coin a name for this sort of license? Feel free, but don't expect any of us to help much. -- Let's face it: software is crap. Feature-laden and bloated, written under tremendous time-pressure, often by incapable coders, using dangerous languages and inadequate tools, trying to connect to heaps of broken or obsolete protocols, implemented equally insufficiently, running on unpredictable hardware -- we are all more than used to brokenness. --Felix Winkelmann ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Started discussion with Figaro re their license.
Karl Fogel scripsit: It's not clear what include a pointer means legally. Is the reference in the LICENSE file enough, or do they mean a hyperlink? A hyperlink that is shown somewhere in the UI where such information is customarily shown? The reference is a hyperlink in abbreviated form: see RFC 3986 Section 4.5. In any case, a license of adhesion (take it or leave it) is interpreted against its author, so if they meant shown somewhere in the UI they would have to say so. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Most languages are dramatically underdescribed, and at least one is dramatically overdescribed. Still other languages are simultaneously overdescribed and underdescribed. Welsh pertains to the third category. --Alan King ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
