Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:39:05 AM UTC+8, Alex Harsanyi wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:45:10 PM UTC+8, Joel Dueck wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:10:56 AM UTC-5, Alex Harsanyi wrote: >>> >>> I am curious to know how you plan to comply with section 4.d

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

Joining in. I want to be part of this. -slg Original Message On Aug 29, 2019, 12:31 PM, 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users wrote: > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >> Thanks for volunteering! I'll follow-up off-list. >> >> Sam > >

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 11:27:41 AM UTC-5, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > Thanks for volunteering! I'll follow-up off-list. > > Sam > Sure thing. Just minutes ago I dug up the Relicensing Permission issue on GitHub and found you have made significant progress. Not looking to wrest this

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

Thanks for volunteering! I'll follow-up off-list. Sam On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:14 PM 'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users wrote: > > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-5, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> >> >> A pulse and keyboard is a good start, but the task requires significant >> initiative

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-5, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > A pulse and keyboard is a good start, but the task requires significant > initiative to work with the Conservancy to get guidance and make sure > things move along. The process may possibly involve contacting >

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

At Thu, 29 Aug 2019 08:14:19 -0700 (PDT), "'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users" wrote: > On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-5, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > > > Lingering elsewhere: the relicensing project that commenced more than > > > 2.5 years ago [5] — not clear whether under the SFC this

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:01:51 AM UTC-5, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > Lingering elsewhere: the relicensing project that commenced more than > > 2.5 years ago [5] — not clear whether under the SFC this effort is > > alive, dead, or what. Of course, Galaxy's Edge took 3 yrs to build, > >

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

At Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:03:42 -0700, Matthew Butterick wrote: > Did SFC do so in this case? No idea. Before the switch, Karen Sandler > from SFC circulated [2] a template agreement [3] but AFAIK the actual > agreement that Racket's core team signed, and the details thereof, > has never been shared

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:45:10 PM UTC+8, Joel Dueck wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:10:56 AM UTC-5, Alex Harsanyi wrote: >> >> I am curious to know how you plan to comply with section 4.d of the LGPL, >> which states that the users of your application must be able to

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:54:42 AM UTC-5, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > If someone violates (their non-lawyer interpretation of) the Racket > license, in a conspicuous manner like you suggest, would they not expect > the SFC to send them a nastygram -- perhaps if only for the SFC to show >

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

> On Aug 28, 2019, at 11:54, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > If someone violates (their non-lawyer interpretation of) the Racket license, > in a conspicuous manner like you suggest, would they not expect the SFC to > send them a nastygram -- perhaps if only for the SFC to show that they defend > the

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

wrote on 8/28/19 11:45 AM: Perhaps naively (IANAL), I am willing to be the guinea pig who [...] I really would've expected the applied game theory civil disobedience / anarchism to kick in on a *different* Racket issue. :) If someone violates (their non-lawyer interpretation of) the Racket

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:10:56 AM UTC-5, Alex Harsanyi wrote: > > I am curious to know how you plan to comply with section 4.d of the LGPL, > which states that the users of your application must be able to replace the > LGPL "library" with a modified version of their own -- this means

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:17:46 AM UTC+8, Joel Dueck wrote: > > On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Alexis King wrote: >> >> Distributing a closed-source, non-LGPL Racket application without >> violating Racket’s licensing terms is likely to be very difficult or >>

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

'Joel Dueck' via Racket Users wrote on 8/27/19 12:17 PM: On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Alexis King wrote: Distributing a closed-source, non-LGPL Racket application without violating Racket’s licensing terms is likely to be very difficult or impossible, This was

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

> On 27 Aug 19, at 9:27 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > 4. The interpretation of the LGPL as it relates to Racket that appears > on the download page is our (the Racket leadership) interepretation, > not the SFCs. None of us are lawyers, but that remains our > interpretation. So Racket's

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:40:13 AM UTC-5, Alexis King wrote: > > Distributing a closed-source, non-LGPL Racket application without > violating Racket’s licensing terms is likely to be very difficult or > impossible, pending the still-ongoing MIT + Apache 2 relicensing effort. > > This

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

Hendrik Boom wrote on 8/24/19 8:48 AM: The only problem I see is with the ue of macros in the propietary part of your software. They make it difficult to take your object code and link it with revised versions of the LGPL'd Racket code. This seems much the same problem as doing the analogous

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 07:20:31PM -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > > Aside: One thing I don't want is anyone new to Racket and open source > licensing to get a chance drive-by impression that Racket has unusual > "licensing problems".  I saw this concern multiple times recently.  I'd say >

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

(Replying to 2 messages...) Summary: I think there's probably no barrier for you with Racket's licensing and intentions, but you will need to talk with your lawyer about the unusual licensing you want to do for your own software. Also, a few related thoughts. Sage Gerard wrote on 8/23/19

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

Thank you for the link. I read through it, along with the (much longer) blog post linked at the beginning. The first thing it made me realize is that I should be more clear: I am not advocating for a CLA! I agree with most of the arguments against them that both posts make. All I was saying is

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

Bradley Kuhn, director of the SFC, has explained why FLOSS projects don't need CLAs, along with some underlying legal truths about FLOSS contributions. [1] [1] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/ > On 23

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

First, thank you all for the responses. Originally I figured I would need to find some key contacts and ask them to review my Racket package* for written permission to publish under a proposed license. But if ownership itself is a question mark, I wonder if I should just pick LGPL for safety

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

> On Aug 23, 2019, at 14:19, Matthew Butterick wrote: > > You're omitting some key facts. Maybe so, but that is, in fact, why I sent the email. I was hoping you could clue me in as to what I was missing. (Maybe it’s unfair of me to ask you for free legal analysis, but I don’t feel like it’s

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

You're omitting some key facts. So no, I don't agree with your legal analysis. But the underlying point remains: there is unnecessary murkiness around Racket's licensing status. > On 23 Aug 19, at 11:24 AM, Alexis King wrote: > > AFAIK, copyright of the Racket codebase is not the Racket

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

> On Aug 23, 2019, at 13:03, Matthew Butterick wrote: > > In some cases, SFC takes ownership of trademarks and copyrights [1] which > means that in terms of license interpretation & enforcement, assumedly the > buck would now stop with them. AFAIK, copyright of the Racket codebase is not the

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

> On Aug 23, 2019, at 6:24 AM, Sage Gerard wrote: > > Has someone tried to release an open source Racket project under a license > that enforces paid commercial use of that project? Light Googling suggests > this would be antithetical to the LGPL if not open source in general, but >

Re: [racket-users] Is it possible to sell commercial use rights to an open source Racket package?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. (But, as others have mentioned, the answer is yes.) In the subject of your subject, you mention “an open source Racket package,” but in the body of your email, you talk about “an open source Racket project.” If you are genuinely talking about a Racket package (in