request feedback on a new licence profile

[Stéphane Croisier]

Hi Darren,

Please take a look at the Collaborative Source Initiative 
(www.collaborativesource.org) which allows you to get royalties for 
valuable use while providing full access to the source for development or 
test purposes. This looks like more in-line with what you plan to do with 
your program. However this will be of course not OSI compliant any more.

Cheers,
Stéphane

At 10:28 12/01/2005, Darren Duncan wrote:
>I will be releasing some new software within a few months that I developed
>from scratch and hold the sole copyright on.  I want it to be licensed
>under terms that are as close to 'freedom software' as possible but also
>allow me to have a good personal return on my work.  As near as I can
>tell, none of the major FOSS licenses match my needs as is, and so I plan
>to write a new license.  Below I will give a profile of what I want the
>license to say, and what the context is that it would be used in.  I
>appreciate any feedback that I can get from you on this matter.  I also
>have some specific questions at the end.  Sorry if its too verbose.
>
>The basic software profile:
>- Implements a database framework/application for storing any kind of data
>in a highly accurate and long-term adaptable fashion.  The basic data
>structures being managed are loosely similar to an ontology model.
>- The market is everyone, especially consumers, but also organizations.
>- The software is meant to be widely applicable,
>as much so as a generic RDBMS, but it isn't a generic RDBMS.
>- Specific user tasks that I will be targeting in the short term include
>genealogy, general research, historical archives, education, etc; another
>specific target is its use as a catalogue.
>- I see myself as entering a mature market with many established players
>(eg, there are a good 30+ genealogy programs already).  I intend that my
>product will stand out by being 'better' rather so much than 'new'; at the
>same time, it should be so much better at addressing needs that people
>would be compelled to use it despite the existing players.
>- Software is highly portable and should run on any modern operating
>system; like Java, but its not written in Java.
>- Software is implemented on top of a generic SQL RDBMS, and it is
>designed to be heavily portable so users can pick what RDBMS they want; if
>they don't want to choose, SQLite 3.x will be used by default.
>- Software uses all-Unicode text exclusively and supports N locales.
>- Software is multi-user from the ground up, and is inherently
>client-server model, but this can be hidden for a single user.
>- Scaled pricing structure; individuals pay little, organizations pay
>more.  Software is componentized and customers can pay a-la-carte; the
>core that everyone needs starts at $100, which includes 5+ years of
>upgrades but no tech support, and should be suitable for a majority of
>individuals, as well as very affordable.
>- The software core allows 1 read-write + 1 read-only concurrent user for
>the starting $100 price, which is like standard consumer desktop programs,
>and is all that a large fraction of users will expect or use.  Additional
>concurrent users are $50 each for read-write and $1 for read-only (each
>is cheaper on volume).
>'Concurrent' means that any number of users can be registered with the
>program and acknowledged in the data change history, but only N of them
>can log in at the same time; one of those must log-out to let an
>additional one log-in beyond the limit; hence, one doesn't necessarily
>need to buy as many concurrent users as actual users if they work at
>different times.  The read-only users are mainly for when the software
>drives a web site, and they are anonymous visitors; 'concurrent' for them
>means within a rotating 24-hour time period.
>- The only price variance is based on number of concurrent users, which is
>counted per installation.  There are no price limits based on processor
>count or other details such as Oracle et al.
>- An 'installation' is virtual; it refers to one instance of the server
>portion of the software that is loaded in RAM and accepting input.  You
>can have the software installed on multiple machines but only the ones
>actually executing count as installations; no paying extra for back-up
>copies.  Moreover, if you have a network of machines which are clustered
>such that they behave to the outside world like a single bigger machine,
>then this also counts as just a single installation (which can service
>more users at once, so things still work out).
>- The normal method for distribution/sale will be as an internet download;
>a purchaser registers with my site in advance, which keeps track of what
>licenses they own and from which they can re-download both the original
>software and any upgrades.  See the Eudora email client for similarity.
>- The software itself is multi-mode with all the per-user-limit variants
>built-in; you enter a registration code like thingy to enable the correct
>limits that were paid for.
>- The software should have a low enough disk footprint that each version
>can be downloaded whole every time, rather than my messing with
>'updaters'.
>- There are no refunds for purchases, but a no-cost demo will be provided
>in advance for try-before-you-buy.
>- Given the nature of the program and its high degree of customizability,
>I anticipate that it would be technically simple for one to figure out how
>it works and build a clone, although that would take time and I would hope
>people do something more original.
>
>This is the basic license profile:
>- One single 'installation' per licence bought.
>- No more concurrent users on an install than the licence specifies.
>- To help keep honest people honest, the software will enforce the
>user-limit restrictions; while it is possible to circumvent this, we ask
>that you don't try, and doing so is a license violation.
>- Each license purchase entitles the buyer to 5+ years of upgrades, minor
>or major, for the licenced compenents without extra cost.
>- Anyone who has purchased a license to the program is also entitled to a
>complete copy of the program source code for the licenced components,
>which at the very least includes the core.  This might be bundled with
>the binary or a separate download, depending on practicality.
>- You may examine the program source code and modify it to better meet
>your needs; the main exception to this is that you may not circumvent the
>per-user limits that you purchased, even though doing so would be made
>easy by access to the source code.
>- You may make any number of back-up copies on 'permanent' storage of both
>the binaries and source for the program, for your own use only.
>- You may not distribute the program as a whole to anyone else, either
>pristine or modified, either binary or source; anyone who wants a copy of
>the program must obtain it from me; you may not distribute even a portion
>of my program, in source or otherwise, to anyone.
>- If you make a modified version of the program, you may distribute only
>the diffs between a pristine version and your changed version, which
>recipients may apply to their pristine version to use your changes.  You
>may charge or not charge any fee of your choice for the diffs, and licence
>them under any terms you want.
>- You may create and distribute separate modules that inter-operate with
>my program components and/or extend my program though its extension API,
>under what terms you want and for what fee you want; these rules are the
>same as for distributing diffs to the program itself.  You may not include
>any code from my program in your modules.
>- You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to send any modifications
>you make to the program to me so that I can include them in the standard
>version, and everyone else can use them without the need to apply diffs.
>- You are required, within reason, to report any serious bugs or security
>holes that you detect in the program, with or without fixes, so that
>everyone can benefit.  Minor bugs or desired enhancements are appreciated
>to be reported, but are not required; doing so benefits you, however.
>- Any modifications to the program that you submit to me for the standard
>version must include disclaimers of copyright and ownership; I retain sole
>ownership of all code in the standard version modules.
>- You may provide technical support for the program to others, and charge
>whatever fee you want for it (just as I do, at a separate charge).
>- If and only if I become unable to distribute or sell the program for a
>period of 1 year, then all restrictions are lifted, whereby you may
>distribute my whole program yourself, pristine or modified, and you may
>circumvent the per-user limits; in that situation, this licence will
>change into a standard 'free software' license.  This license conversion
>can not be revoked for any already distributed versions, although I will
>remain the copyright holder of the pristine version, and any new versions
>I may happen to make later, if possible, may be subject to other licenses.
>
>To summarize, the license allows access to source code and its
>modification for your own use, but you may not distribute the program to
>others; all distribution, save diffs of your own modifications, must go
>through me; there is also a sunset clause that kicks in if I can no longer
>deliver on my end, which allows others to have my privileges.
>
>My rationale for having the specified structure, aside from wanting to get
>paid, is an effort to avoid fragmentation and retain fundamental control
>over my creation.  I see other benefits to both myself and everyone else.
>
>Note that my long-term goal is that this program will benefit humanity,
>in a philanthrophy sense, and in that respect I want it to be the best
>quality possible, and as widely deployed as possible.  In the long term, a
>standard 'free software' license would serve the needs fine.  But in the
>short term I and those who help me need to make a living from this, and
>trying to subside on services fees alone is not reliable while the
>installed base is small.  The license terms I describe refer to the short
>term situation where I depend on the licence fees to live.
>
>The questions:
>
>1. Do the licensing terms I mentioned sound reasonable as applied to an
>average person and their situation?  How about to you and yours?  How
>about to a business that may want to use or extend the program?  Does
>any of it sound outrageous?
>
>2. How likely would an average programmer, when presented with this
>license, respect what it says, versus the likelihood of intentionally
>violating the license in some way for some self-serving reason.
>
>...
>
>I had more questions, but it's getting late so I'll ask them tomorrow.
>They concern the practicality of using the above license, and whether or
>not I would be better or worse off financially by allowing all users to
>have the source code vs letting them only have the binaries.
>
>3. What is the risk that someone who has bought my program and gotten
>the source code could try to pass off my work, slightly altered, as
>entirely their own and/or make a new product strongly based on my code?
>If this happens, how likely is it that this would cause me a problem vs
>being harmless?
>
>4. How likely would it be that someone with my source code could publish
>it and/or pass it off to other people like warez?  If this happens, how
>likely would this cause a problem for me to sell my program?  How is the
>risk increased by their access to the code vs typical binary warez?
>
>5. How likely would it be that someone would circumvent the per-user
>limits and get more than they paid for?  How likely that they would
>distribute this cracked version?
>
>Note that I fully expect that there will be some unscrupulous people who
>send copies around etc.  But as long as it doesn't seriously impact my
>ability to sell copies then I'm not concerned about it.  I am more
>concerned if someone makes a fortune from distributing my code, however,
>vs selling their own improvements as a separate product.
>
>Thanks in advance for any feedback. -- Darren Duncan