Submitting a new license or using the current ones

[jcowan at reutershealth.com]

Guilherme C. Hazan scripsit:

> We now want to change the license from part of the product to another one
> that states:
> 
> 1. our software is and will ever be open-source
> 2. their software can have any license they want
> 3. they cannot distribute our software to their customers (or anyone else)
> 
> We're migrating to an "annual subscription" mode, so that we can raise funds
> to keep the software open-source (and keep us altogether)

Unfortunately, your desires #1 and #3 are mutually contradictory.  The principle
that open-source software can be freely distributed and redistributed is the
very first point of the Open Source Definition.

The most you can do is to make further releases of your software proprietary,
which does expose you to the risk that a competitor will arise who will
make further improvements to the old releases and distribute them under the
old license or some other open source license.

> 1. Which licenses do you think (OSI-approved) that could fit on these
> clauses?

None.

> 2. In case we want to create a new license, how much time does OSI takes to
> approve it? We have now a deadline (well, everybody does! ;-)).

The delay is very variable, but no open-source license can do what you want.

> 3. If we take an already-approved license, like (just example) mozilla one,
> must we keep the license exactly as it is (with all references to mozilla),
> or can we replace the mozilla one by our product's name?

The MPL explicitly provides for you to do that.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

-- 
You let them out again, Old Man Willow!                 John Cowan
What you be a-thinking of?  You should not be waking!   jcowan at reutershealth.com
Eat earth!  Dig deep!  Drink water!  Go to sleep!       www.reutershealth.com
Bombadil is talking.                                    www.ccil.org/~cowan
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3