[License-discuss] "Channelized" Open Source Licensing

[Peter Corless]

Thanks for all the feedback folks.

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 6:02 PM Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:

> On 2018-10-20 09:10, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Peter Corless:
> >
> > > There seems to be a lot of buzz these days about licenses in the face
> of
> > > cloud providers.
> > >
> > > I'd like to ask if anyone has considered, in this group, the concept
> of a
> > > 'channelized' license?
> > >
> > > Party A: An OSS developer.
> > > Party B: A cloud provider who hosting Party A's OSS, and is is charging
> > > Party C for this.
> > > Party C: A  user, using Party A's software, which is hosted on Party
> B's
> > > cloud.
> > >
> > > Under current licensing, the OSS license is between Party A, and Party
> B.
> > > Party B really isn't modifying or contributing to Party A's OSS code
> base.
> > >
> > > Party C, meanwhile, can do whatever they want to the OSS, since they
> have
> > > no legal license obligation back to Party A. Their access is provided
> > > through Party B. They could, theoretically, violate the license Party A
> > > distributed their software under, since they are just using it.
> >
> > By definition, OSS licenses do not have a field-of-use restriction, so
> > it is impossible to violate the license just by using the software
> > (unless the act of running the software creates some for of derivative
> > work).  Acts other than running the software typically require some
> > sort of license under copyright, and C can only get that on A's terms
> > (potentially as amended by B, but whether that's possible is really up
> > to A).
>
> The language of OSD 6:
>
>   The license must not restrict anyone from making use of
>   the program in a specific field of endeavor.
>
> The OSI has approved licenses that trigger copyleft
> conditions on kinds of use, alone (OSL) and with
> modifications (AGPL).
>
> OSL and AGPL licensees remain free to use the software for
> the endeavors of business, the military, genetic research,
> and so on.  To use open licensing lingo, they aren't
> _restricted_ from using in those fields.  But when doing so
> involves offering a network service, they have to mind and
> comply with the conditions such use may trigger.
>
> --
> Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20181021/fbd3b2f6/attachment.html>