> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses that
> permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for
> for-profit hosting.
Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe that
AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of
Miles Fidelman wrote:
I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses that
permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license fee for for-profit
hosting.
Stephen Paul Weber responded:
Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe that
Hi Folks,
I'm working on some code that will eventually be made available as both
open source code, and a hosted service (think Wordpress, Drupal, etc.).
I'm wondering if anybody has any experience or thoughts about licenses
that permit self-hosting, and free hosting, but require a license
Hi Kevin and Cem,
I think the confusion here is indeed about ownership vs, access, As I
understand Cem’s project he wants to provide access to third parties to its
code and wants to ‘license’ it. However open source license (afaik) deal with
the ownership part of the code and does not deal in
There are any number of licenses written in this way. CC BY-NC-* for example.
None of them are open source, however. See OSD 1 & 6.
You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board.
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
Thanks for the starting points, folks.
I'm starting to think something like a dual license
- AGPL for non-commercial uses (AGPL + borrow some of the language from
CC BY-NC-*), and,
- Most of the terms of AGPL (re. download of source, etc.) + a license
fee for commercial use in an SaaS offering
Miles -
You might also check out the Reciprocal Public License:
https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5
Authored by Technical Pursuit, it's direct intent is the same "pay for
privacy" business model now enjoyed by companies such as GitHub. In fact,
we couch our commercial offering as a 'waiver'
If by 'restrict' you mean 'comply with the terms of the ARL OSL', then I agree
with you. Remember, the only reason we're pursuing the ARL OSL is because the
vast majority of our work has no copyright, and therefore can't be licensed
under the standard licenses. If we could, we'd drop the ARL
Sec 10 of AGPL does not allow the imposition of additional restrictions to it
(such as "only for non-commercial uses), and section 7 allows a recipient to
remove those restrictions.
You really are trying to develop a non-open source business model. This board
is probably not the best place
On 8/5/16 4:20 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
Sec 10 of AGPL does not allow the imposition of additional restrictions to it (such
as "only for non-commercial uses), and section 7 allows a recipient to remove
those restrictions.
You really are trying to develop a non-open source business model.
Thanks, Bill!
Can you say any more about how that's working for you in practice?
Best,
Miles
On 8/5/16 4:28 PM, William Edney wrote:
Miles -
You might also check out the Reciprocal Public License:
https://opensource.org/licenses/RPL-1.5
Authored by Technical Pursuit, it's direct intent
Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net):
> There are those who disagree, myself included. (And what makes
> Engel Nyst the last word on such matters?)
As I'm sure you are aware, I merely meant that Mr. Nyst expressed my
view well enough that it would be redundant effort to write up
On 8/5/16 5:02 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net):
Seems to me that this is an open source business model, just not one
where all things are free.
Sorry, no.
This comes up quite a bit, and Engel Nyst gave back in 2013 the answer
I'd give, so here's his
Keep in mind also that if you have any plans to accept contributions to
this codebase (having it be an open source project, instead of just open
source software), using such a license could be quite an impediment. Having
additional copyright holders, who are potentially involved in any actions
you
Miles -
It's working well for us but our product is a toolkit that folks use to
build custom apps with and, as Larry mentioned earlier, many folks in our
target market want to keep their code proprietary, hence they purchase the
waiver to the RPL. The RPL is purpose-built for that sort of
Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net):
> Seems to me that this is an open source business model, just not one
> where all things are free.
Sorry, no.
This comes up quite a bit, and Engel Nyst gave back in 2013 the answer
I'd give, so here's his answer:
16 matches
Mail list logo
