Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-06 Thread Stephen Paul Weber 
> 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.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread William Edney 
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 situation so,
depending on what you're trying to do, YMMV.

Cheers,

- Bill

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net>
wrote:

> 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 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' allowing you to keep your
> code private.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Bill
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com>
> 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.  This
>> 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@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. download of source, etc.) + a license
>> fee for commercial use in an SaaS offering
>>
>> I'm really wondering if there are any specific examples of someone doing
>> this, or of someone trying to do this and running into serious snags.
>> (You know, learn from other people's experiences, not reinvent the wheel,
>> and if there are really good reasons not to try, better to know
>> early.)
>>
>> And, re. "You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board" --
>> any thoughts on where to post?
>>
>> Thanks Again,
>>
>> Miles
>>
>>
>> On 8/5/16 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul Weber 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.
>> > Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe
>> that AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of what you want, while
>> still being an open source license.
>> AND
>>
>> On 8/5/16 1:46 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
>> > 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 Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
>> > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
>> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
>> > Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
>> >
>> > 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 fee for
>> for-profit hosting.
>> >
>> > It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for
>> generating sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it gets
>> diluted very quickly if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much as I find it
>> convenient to, at times, set up a quick wordpress account on godaddy - it
>> strikes me as just a might unfair that I'm paying godaddy, but they're not
>> paying the folks at wordpress, and worse, they're siphoning off customers
>> from wordpress).
>> >
>> > Anybody have thoughts on the matter?
>> >
>> >

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Rick Moen 
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 the same
viewpoint twice.

> I'm not talking about any restrictions on distributing the software.

OSD #6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

Restricting commercial use is the canonical example of discrimination
against fields of endeavour.  In a large sense, open source was actually
a reaction against the sort of 'academic licensing' typified by COPS,
pgp after early days, SSH Communications Security Ltd.'s SSH 2.x, and
many other codebases that permits gratis use for non-commercial purposes
and imposes a mandatory fee for any for-profit usage.

You have more than adequate standard solutions already, such as those
Engel Nyst described, such as (1) dual-licensing with a copyleft licence
and a proprietary one, or (2) licenses such as was used by Aladdin
Ghostscript where code is proprietary-only for a set period of time and
then becomes open source (or where the last-but-one release becomes open
source).

If you cannot make your business work with that and need outright
proprietary terms for commercial users, then good luck to you, but
you're simply not doing open source.

I see nothing to discuss, here. 

Either do open source, or I don't see how you're going to get help from
OSI.

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Kevin Fleming 
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 might take to enforce the 'no SaaS for money' restriction, might be
complex (at best).

As far as places to discuss such things, there are probably few public
forums in which such discussions might happen, due to the fact that you'll
rapidly enter the domain of 'legal advice' and finding attorneys who will
provide such advice for free in a public forum for a license which won't
meet the OSD seems unlikely. The OSD says (in clause 6):

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

That's pretty clear.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 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 answer:
> https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/
> 2013-December/018777.html
>
> --
> Cheers, Grossman's Law:  "In time of crisis, people do not
> rise to
> Rick Moen   the occasion.  They fall to the level of their
> training."
> r...@linuxmafia.com  http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/
> lexicon.html#grossman
> McQ! (4x80)
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Miles Fidelman 



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 answer:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-December/018777.html



There are those who disagree, myself included.  (And what makes Engel 
Nyst the last word on such matters?)


The OSD says:
"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away 
the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution 
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall 
not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."


There is a large gap between "selling or giving away the software" and 
running the software.  I'm not talking about any restrictions on 
distributing the software.


And, I might note, that the OSD definition is somewhat more specific in 
referring to "as a component of an aggregate software distribution 
containing programs from several different sources."


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Rick Moen 
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:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-December/018777.html

-- 
Cheers, Grossman's Law:  "In time of crisis, people do not rise to
Rick Moen   the occasion.  They fall to the level of their training."
r...@linuxmafia.com  http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.html#grossman
McQ! (4x80)
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Miles Fidelman 

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 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' allowing you to 
keep your code private.


Cheers,

- Bill

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com 
<mailto:mccoy.sm...@intel.com>> 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.  This board is probably not the best place for trying to do
that.

-Original Message-
From: License-discuss
[mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org
<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>] On Behalf Of
Miles Fidelman
Sent: 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 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

I'm really wondering if there are any specific examples of someone
doing this, or of someone trying to do this and running into
serious snags.
(You know, learn from other people's experiences, not reinvent the
wheel, and if there are really good reasons not to try, better to know
early.)

And, re. "You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin
board" -- any thoughts on where to post?

Thanks Again,

Miles


On 8/5/16 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul Weber 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.
> Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I
believe that AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of what
you want, while still being an open source license.
AND

On 8/5/16 1:46 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> 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
<mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>]
> On Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
<mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org>
> Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
>
> 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 fee for for-profit hosting.
>
> It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for
generating sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it
gets diluted very quickly if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much
as I find it convenient to, at times, set up a quick wordpress
account on godaddy - it strikes me as just a might unfair that I'm
paying godaddy, but they're not paying the folks at wordpress, and
worse, they're siphoning off customers from wordpress).
>
> Anybody have thoughts on the matter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
<mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org>
>
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
<https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
<mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Miles Fidelman 

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.  This board 
is probably not the best place for trying to do that.


Ok, so based on the AGPL, that the AGPL.

And, no, I'm trying to develop a non-free business model, distinct from 
a closed source model - with one very specific and limited non-free 
condition.  Specifically:

- run it on your own local machine: FOSS
- run it on your own host (including an enterprise host):  FOSS
- run it on some other host, for your own use:  FOSS
- run it on a host for non-commercial use (e.g, an organization 
providing service to its members):  FOSS

- rut it as a SaaS, charge for it:  OSS with a license fee

Seems to me that this is an open source business model, just not one 
where all things are free.


Miles




-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

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

I'm really wondering if there are any specific examples of someone doing this, 
or of someone trying to do this and running into serious snags.
(You know, learn from other people's experiences, not reinvent the wheel, and 
if there are really good reasons not to try, better to know
early.)

And, re. "You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board" -- any 
thoughts on where to post?

Thanks Again,

Miles


On 8/5/16 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul Weber 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.

Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe that 
AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of what you want, while still being 
an open source license.

AND

On 8/5/16 1:46 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:

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 Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

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 fee for for-profit 
hosting.

It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for generating 
sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it gets diluted very quickly 
if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much as I find it convenient to, at times, 
set up a quick wordpress account on godaddy - it strikes me as just a might 
unfair that I'm paying godaddy, but they're not paying the folks at wordpress, 
and worse, they're siphoning off customers from wordpress).

Anybody have thoughts on the matter?

Thanks,

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread William Edney 
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' allowing you to keep your
code private.

Cheers,

- Bill

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.sm...@intel.com> 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.  This
> 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@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. download of source, etc.) + a license fee
> for commercial use in an SaaS offering
>
> I'm really wondering if there are any specific examples of someone doing
> this, or of someone trying to do this and running into serious snags.
> (You know, learn from other people's experiences, not reinvent the wheel,
> and if there are really good reasons not to try, better to know
> early.)
>
> And, re. "You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board" --
> any thoughts on where to post?
>
> Thanks Again,
>
> Miles
>
>
> On 8/5/16 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul Weber 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.
> > Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe
> that AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of what you want, while
> still being an open source license.
> AND
>
> On 8/5/16 1:46 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> > 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 Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
> > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
> > To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
> >
> > 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 fee for
> for-profit hosting.
> >
> > It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for generating
> sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it gets diluted very
> quickly if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much as I find it convenient to,
> at times, set up a quick wordpress account on godaddy - it strikes me as
> just a might unfair that I'm paying godaddy, but they're not paying the
> folks at wordpress, and worse, they're siphoning off customers from
> wordpress).
> >
> > Anybody have thoughts on the matter?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Miles Fidelman
> >
> >
> > --
> > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> > In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra
> >
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@opensource.org
> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> > ___
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss@opensource.org
> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Smith, McCoy 
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 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

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

I'm really wondering if there are any specific examples of someone doing this, 
or of someone trying to do this and running into serious snags.  
(You know, learn from other people's experiences, not reinvent the wheel, and 
if there are really good reasons not to try, better to know
early.)

And, re. "You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board" -- any 
thoughts on where to post?

Thanks Again,

Miles


On 8/5/16 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul Weber 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.
> Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe that 
> AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of what you want, while still 
> being an open source license.
AND

On 8/5/16 1:46 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> 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 Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
>
> 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 fee for 
> for-profit hosting.
>
> It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for generating 
> sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it gets diluted very 
> quickly if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much as I find it convenient to, 
> at times, set up a quick wordpress account on godaddy - it strikes me as just 
> a might unfair that I'm paying godaddy, but they're not paying the folks at 
> wordpress, and worse, they're siphoning off customers from wordpress).
>
> Anybody have thoughts on the matter?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Miles Fidelman 

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


I'm really wondering if there are any specific examples of someone doing 
this, or of someone trying to do this and running into serious snags.  
(You know, learn from other people's experiences, not reinvent the 
wheel, and if there are really good reasons not to try, better to know 
early.)


And, re. "You might want to post on a non-open source bulletin board" -- 
any thoughts on where to post?


Thanks Again,

Miles


On 8/5/16 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul Weber 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.

Of course, such a license would not be open source. However, I believe that 
AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of what you want, while still being 
an open source license.

AND

On 8/5/16 1:46 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:

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 Behalf 
Of Miles Fidelman
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

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 fee for for-profit 
hosting.

It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for generating 
sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it gets diluted very quickly 
if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much as I find it convenient to, at times, 
set up a quick wordpress account on godaddy - it strikes me as just a might 
unfair that I'm paying godaddy, but they're not paying the folks at wordpress, 
and worse, they're siphoning off customers from wordpress).

Anybody have thoughts on the matter?

Thanks,

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Lawrence Rosen 
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 
AGPL would get you very close to the spirit of what you want, while still being 
an open source license.

Larry Rosen now comments:
AGPL doesn't affect for-profit hosting. It only affects *proprietary* hosting 
of AGPL code to third parties over a network, for which the copyright owner can 
demand a for-fee AGPL license exception.

/Larry

bcc:

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Stephen Paul Weber 
> 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 what you want, while still being 
an open source license.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

2016-08-05 Thread Smith, McCoy 
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 Behalf 
Of Miles Fidelman
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

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 fee for for-profit 
hosting.

It strikes me that hosting is a reasonable business model for generating 
sustaining revenue from open source code, but that it gets diluted very quickly 
if anybody can free-ride (i.e., as much as I find it convenient to, at times, 
set up a quick wordpress account on godaddy - it strikes me as just a might 
unfair that I'm paying godaddy, but they're not paying the folks at wordpress, 
and worse, they're siphoning off customers from wordpress).

Anybody have thoughts on the matter?

Thanks,

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss