Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL
maa at liacc.up.pt
maa at liacc.up.pt
Thu Mar 13 11:07:01 UTC 2003
Dear all:
On 2002-11-22 I originated the thread "The OSD and commercial use" on this
list (license-discuss at opensource.org), about the problem of selling open
source software. After lurking over the ensuing discussion (thanks guys) I
promised to come back with my thereafter educated reflections. Here they are
now, in the form of the teasing little article reproduced below.
In the meanwhile, the thread "Commercial license?" on comp.lang.ada (CLA),
initiated on 2003-03-10, led me to the Ada Developers Cooperative License
[Leif 2002], which I found astonishingly similar in gist to my individual
efforts of a license conciliating open source and commercial software [Alves
2003]. Namely I think both licenses meet with the same obstacles, which I
describe in the article (see also the former OSI thread). So I'm also
addressing the CLA posters. OSI people may skip the rest of this paragraph.
Ada guys, I'm very fond of the idea of the Ada Developers Cooperative: let's
give it a push! Robert, be sure to count me in as a "Ada capitalist". Victor,
I think you'll find [Alves 2003] a "concise informal formulation" (not a
*re*formulation of ADCL as you wanted, but an alternate formulation of the
same gist). I have many more ideas relating to the ADC: is there a mailing
list yet?
The thread on CLA had also the catalytic effect of making me finalize the
article, which had been in 'pre-draft' form for some months.
Regards,
--MAA
OPEN SOURCE BUSINESS FOUND PARASITIC
--WORK IN PROGRESS--
Version 1maa (2003-03-12)
(C) Mário Amado Alves
(I intend to publish this text in a wider medium than this list, unless
essential faults are found in it. I welcome any collaboration: “I” can change
to “we”. The title is also changeable.)
I am an open source fan. I say this right away to clear up any impressions to
the contrary given by the title. Specifically, I have the utmost respect and
admiration for all existing open source businesses: RedHat, MySQL AB, etc.
(trademark signs required?) It is not their fault that their business is found
parasitic.
I am also a believer in intellectual property. Specifically, I believe that
authors (copyright owners?) are entitled to a just compensation for the
commercial use of their work.
So, naturally, I want to combine these two principles (open source and
intellectual property). However, I have found this to be very hard, if not
impossible.
In the rest of this text I explain the problem in detail, and propose
solutions. Open source business being parasitic is just one aspect, risen to
title status simply for its provocative appeal.
The current reflections are about open source in connection with the business
of selling software; not support, or anything else that is associated with the
software but that is not it.
Most open source licenses, including GPL, simply forbid selling the software.
I have found no rationale for this.
Fortunately the OSD (Open Source Definition) does not forbid selling the
software. (Or does it?)
However, because of clause 6 (no discrimination against fields of endeavor),
the open source business must either sell to all recipients (including authors
of derivative works?) or give away to all.
Because selling to all would in practice prevent open source benefits to take
place, notably contribution from the community at large, the open source
business has to give it away. Bye bye business.
Curiously enough, this effect of clause 6 is contrary to a certain
interpretation of its own rationale, which is to allow open source to be used
commercially. The interpretation is one whereby “commercial use”
includes “selling software”.
Also, the general problem depends on an certain interpretation of clause 6
itself, whereby “restrict” includes “requiring a fee”. (This interpretation
seems fairly reasonable, but if it is wrong please let me know ASAP so I can
start selling open source software right away.)
So, open source software cannot be sold, but this seems to be an unwarranted
effect of the license terms.
I propose to look back at the open source rationalia, and revise the OSD terms
in order to correct this effect.
Of course relaxing clause 6 to allow discrimination w.r.t. requiring a fee is
a possible solution. It would be just a patch up, and I do not advocate to do
it in isolation, but the hypothesis may point some directions.
Pending a clean solution, there exists an ‘emulation’ of the business of
selling open source software: dual licensing.
Dual licensing: Copyright owners release under a ‘spreading’ open source
license (usually GPL). Users wanting to sell derivatives must obtain a non
open source (or just non spreading?) license.
Business: the ‘closed’ license is sold.
Problem: Only the copyright owners can sell the closed license. So the closed
license vendor must own the copyright of all modifications made to their
product (by the open source community at large). Is this feasible? Practical?
Done? (MySQL?)
Another problem: The need to buy a closed license for X lies exclusively on
the existence of (exclusively) closed software Y the buyer is joining with X
to form a distributable or sellable product Z. If Y is opened, then Z must
also be opened, and then, again, bye bye business. Corollary (unwanted?): the
open source business (dual licensing) is parasitic on non-open source
business. If everybody went open source, nobody could sell software!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[Alves 2003]
Conditions of Use of MAA Artifacts : Version 3 (2003-03-12) / Mário Amado
Alves. -- Internal document. -- (Reproduced here as Annex A.)
[GPL]
The GNU General Public License (GPL) : Version 2, June 1991 / (c) 1989, 1991
Free Software Foundation. -- Internet, 2002. -- 6 p.
[Hecker 2000]
Setting Up Shop : The Business of Open-Source Software / Frank Hecker. --
Originally published May 1998, revised 20 June 2000 : Revision 0.8 : Draft. --
Internet, 2002. -- 35 p.
[Leif 2002]
Ada Developers Cooperative License : Version 0.31 (Draft) / Robert C. Leif. --
July 4, 2002;
http://www.newportinstruments.com/ada_med/pdf/coop_license031.pdf, 2003. -- 12
p.
[LGPL]
GNU Library General Public License : Version 2, June 1991 / (c) 1991 Free
Software Foundation. -- Internet, 2002. -- 7 p.
[Malcolm 2002]
Problems in Open Source Licensing / Jeremy Malcolm. -- Internet, 2002.
[MySQL 2002]
MySQL Licensing Policy. -- www.mysql.com, 2002. -- 3 p.
[OSD]
The Open Source Definition : Version 1.9 / (c) 2002 by the Open Source
Initiative. -- opensource.org, 2002. -- 2 p.
REVISION HISTORY
2003-03-12: finalized version 1maa
ANNEX A. Full contents of [Alves 2003]
Conditions of Use of MAA Artifacts
Version 3 (2003-03-12)
(C) Mário Amado Alves
1 General
1.1 The gist of these conditions is: (a) an MAA artifact is distributed
freely, but if (b) anyone makes money using it, then (c) the authors of
the artifact are entitled to a just compensation. Here "free" implies
"open source", as per the Open Source Definition by OSI, at
www.opensource.org.
1.2 The effective version of these conditions is, at any time, the most
recent one that is not contrary to the gist described in 1.1. Henceforth
"these conditions" denote the effective version.
1.3 The use of any MAA artifact is subject to these conditions. The use,
of an MAA artifact, not in accordance with these conditions, is an
illegal act.
1.4 An MAA artifact is any artifact claimed to be such by its authors.
Any artifact authored exclusively by MAA has such claim made implicitely.
1.5 Any copy of an MAA artifact must have a license for its use, as
follows.
1.6 A copy used in a business must have a specific license for that use
explicitly issued by MAA. Such a license is called a "commercial
license" and is explained in 4.
1.7 A copy not used in a business has an MAA Non-Commercial License
implicitly issued by MAA at zero monetary cost. Such license is defined
in 2.
1.8 The use of a copy is subject to the conditions defined in its
license.
1.9 "Used in a business" means being part of a commercial service or a
commercial product, or being used in the process of creating, preparing
or providing such service or product. "Commercial" means having the
purpose or result of being sold.
2 MAA Non-Commercial License
2.1 This license defines the conditions of use of, a copy of an MAA
artifact, not used in a business, as defined in 1. Henceforth such a copy
is called "the artifact".
2.2 The artifact may be copied or distributed. Any distribution must
have a copy made publicly available in the Internet.
2.3 If the artifact is a software program or component its distribution
must include the entire source code of the artifact.
2.4 The artifact may be modified as long as: (a) the modification is
described with at least the date of the modification and the
identification of the author of the modification, and (b) all
pre-existing descriptions of modifications or creation, including
copyright notices, are preserved in the modified copy.
2.5 The modified artifact is still an MAA artifact subject to the
current Conditions of Use of MAA Artifacts.
2.6 The artifact must exhibit the MAA Artifact Notice defined in 3.
2.7 A distribution of the artifact must include a copy of the current
Conditions of Use of MAA Artifacts.
2.8 A product containing the artifact, or a service using it, must
advertise that fact. Note that if the product or service is commercial
(as per 1.9) then 1.5 applies, and not this license.
2.9 A product containing the artifact may be distributed under another
license if and only if this other license respects the gist 1.1 of the
current license and it is an open source license not less restrictive
than the current license and MAA is notified.
3 MAA Artifact Notice
This is an MAA artifact. The use of an MAA artifact is subject to the
Conditions of Use of MAA Artifacts, which the user must know in order to
be in a legal state. These conditions are described in the file
conditions_of_use_of_maa_artifacts.txt, or at maa.planetaclix.pt, or at
AdaPower.Net/~maa, or upon request to amado.alves at clix.pt, or to
MAA at AdaPower.Net, or to maa at liacc.up.pt, or to postal address Alameda dos
Descobrimentos 490 R/C Esq, 4480 VILA CONDE, Portugal, or to phone number
351-252646623.
4 MAA Business
4.1 The MAA business is the selling of commercial licenses for MAA
artifacts. MAA is the only entity that can issue commercial licenses for
an MAA artifact.
4.2 MAA represents all authors of an MAA artifact when dealing with a
prospective or effective buyer of a commercial license. A commercial
license for an MAA artifact is not issued without the agreement of all
authors of the artifact.
4.3 All authors, of an MAA artifact subject to a commercial license, are
entitled to the just monetary reward for their participation in the
making of the artifact. This is negotiated between MAA and the authors.
4.4 MAA is the entity identified in 3 and he is currently a Portuguese
liberal professional named Mário Rafael da Silva Amado Alves with fiscal
number 154089354. Eventually MAA may take the form of a company, but this
will not significantly modify the Conditions of Use of MAA Artifacts.
REVISION HISTORY
2002-11-17: finalized version 2
2003-02-12: version 3 = version 2 + cosmetics
-----------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through NIAAD: http://www.niaad.liacc.up.pt/
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list