<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 5:58 PM Greg Luck <<a href="mailto:greg@hazelcast.com" target="_blank">greg@hazelcast.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px"><span style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px"><span><font style="font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px">If OSI or another standards body fails to solve this problem with a general, community accepted license, which keeps open source as we know it but restricts service wrapping, then there will be plethora of new custom licenses where each open source software vendor solves the problem for themselves.</font></span></span></div></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OSI can not "solve" this problem without changing the definition of Open Source or stepping outside of the territory of Open Source to create a new commercial licensing paradigm. They can't do that. I <i>can</i> do that, and will help gratis - as I have already helped other attorneys - as long as you promise to avoid conflict with Open Source. That means you call it something else, and that you acknowledge the difference between your licensing and Open Source. Have your attorney write to me.</div><div><br></div><div>We must remain cognizant that "Open Source companies" remain in the minority of Open Source developers. Most Open Source developers do not wish to make any revenue from their software, but use it to enable another business or non-profit activity. Those folks might welcome having their software adopted by a service provider.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px"><span style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px"><span><font style="font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px">I predict the majority of popular open source infrastructure software will have defensive measures in place in the next year, all with custom licenses.</font></span></span></div></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Actually, it would not be the majority of Open Source infrastructure software. It would be the minority produced by companies which wish to directly gain revenue from that software. This is not the paradigm behind the production of most Open Source. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px"><span style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px"><span><font style="font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px">Which will require the use of a lawyer to use that software, create commercial uncertainty and be a major friction in the use of what has been open source software.<br></font></span></span></div></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Which will not be OSI or Open Source's problem. You create this problem by leaving the tent.</div><div><br></div><div>    Thanks</div><div><br></div><div>    Bruce</div><div> <br></div><div><br></div></div></div>