[License-discuss] Idea for time-dependent license, need comments

[Qian Hong]

Hi folks,

I'm considering to create a new open source license which is so called
"time-dependent license". I've thinking about it for more about one
year,
however, due to lack of law knowledge I'm not able to submit a formal
request of review right now. I would like to post my idea here and
listen to suggestions, any comments are great appreciated!

The "time-dependent license" is something like below:

Assume we have a license named "time-dependent GPL", or "Delay-able
GPL", or simply "DGPL", which allow others:

1. Free redistribution source code and binary of the DGPL software
2. Create derived work from the DGPL software
3. Author of the derived work does not have to release the source code
as soon as the binary is released, however, she/he has to release the
source code after a define time, which is define in the license of the
original work, for example, 4 years.
4. The derived work author can always release new version of their
production with binary only at first, however, for each version she/he
has released, finally she/he has to released the source code of that
version.
For example, binary v1.0 is released in 2012, binary v1.2 is released
in 2013, so source code of v1.0 has to be released in 2016, and source
code of v1.2 has to be released in 2017.

My goal is to create a license which could encourage commercial using
of open source code but prevent monopoly.
Let's imagine the below scene:
A.
- Some guys created an open source software called Open Ware which is
released under MIT.
- A young company called New Soft built a commercial software called
Great Ware base on Open Ware. For commercial purpose they decided to
close source Great Ware.
- Luckily several years later New Soft became a large company with
great income, unfortunately, the company did not benefit the Open Ware
community too much.
What's worse, New Soft might become monopoly one day.
B.
- Some guys created Open Ware, which is released under DGPL
- A young company called New Soft considered to build a commercial
software base on Open Ware, at first they even didn't know how long
their company will live, so they didn't mind too much about whether
they have to release the source code in the future. DGPL was
acceptable at that time, so they decided to use it.
- Luckily again, several years later, New Soft became a successful
company. However, New Soft had fewer chance to become monopoly, since
it had to release the source code of their old production, so either
the open source community or some random competitor could follow up
with New Soft based on the old production from New Soft.
On the other hand, New Soft still has the chance to keep up their
market share if they work hard enough to continue improving their
production, since they didn't need to release the latest source code
at once.
Fair enough, isn't it?

So the idea is to use some delay-able license when you are creating
open source project which allow commercial use while you wouldn't like
anyone to become monopoly.
My question is, in theory is it possible to create such licenses which
satisfy "The Open Source Definition" from opensource.org and usable
under some law system such as the U.S. law?
If possible, how about other variants, for example:
A delay-able license, which is MIT-like at first, LGPL-like later, and
GPL-like in the end;
A delay-able license, which is MIT-like at first, and
GPL-commercial-dual-license-like in the end - at first anyone can
freely (as beer) create derived work without releasing source code,
however, some years later ( 4 years for example), one should either
pay for the license or release the source code of the old production.
Other variants? What about mixing any group of licenses with the magic
of "delay-able"? License-A-like at first, then License-B-like, then
License-C-like... Mix any licenses together if necessary, time is the
magic. Sounds like a crazy idea, it that possible?

I've searching for some time but didn't see anything like that yet,
did I miss anything?

Currently I'm not serious enough to create a formal license, but maybe
this will happen in the future. I'm open to any suggestions, ideas and
discussions, either for possibility or usability.
I guess such license will benefit our community since it seems a
win-win. At lease we'll have some more choice. How about your
opinions?
Any comment is great appreciated!

Thanks for you time for reading the long post ;-)

--
Regards,
Qian Hong

-
Sent from Ubuntu
http://www.ubuntu.com/


-- 
Regards,
Qian Hong

-
Sent from Ubuntu
http://www.ubuntu.com/