> AGPL doesn't affect for-profit hosting.
Not directly, of course, but it will discourage any BigCo running off to kill
you with proprietary extensions that they host. Which is why I said it's as
close in spirit as you can get on this side of open source.
board is probably not the best place for trying to do that.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On
>> Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:15 PM
>> To: license-discuss@opensou
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
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
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
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:
: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:15 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
Thanks for the starting points, folks.
I'm starting to think something like a dual license
- AGPL for
scuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
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. dow
..@opensource.org] On
> Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:15 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
>
> Thanks for the starting points, folks.
>
> I'm starting to think something
place for trying to do that.
-Original Message-
From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org] On Behalf
Of Miles Fidelman
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:15 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
T
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 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
> 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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
