[License-discuss] licenses for hosted services
Miles Fidelman
mfidelman at meetinghouse.net
Fri Aug 5 20:51:13 UTC 2016
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.smith at intel.com
> <mailto:mccoy.smith at 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-bounces at opensource.org
> <mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org>] On Behalf Of
> Miles Fidelman
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:15 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> <mailto:license-discuss at 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-bounces at opensource.org
> <mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org>]
> > On Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
> > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> <mailto:license-discuss at 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 at opensource.org
> <mailto:License-discuss at 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 at opensource.org
> <mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org>
> >
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
> <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 at opensource.org <mailto:License-discuss at 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 at opensource.org <mailto:License-discuss at 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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160805/7f2a592b/attachment.html>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list