[License-discuss] Question for licensing an open source library

[John Wason]

Hello,

I am Dr. John Wason, the developer of an open-source communication 
library for robotics and automation named Robot Raconteur 
(http://robotraconteur.net).  I am looking for advice in licensing this 
product.  I began developing Robot Raconteur as part of my doctoral 
research and am continuing its development as part of my company Wason 
Technology, LLC.  Robot Raconteur is a binary communication 
specification combined with a set of software libraries for different 
languages and platforms.  I have been releasing the source code as LGPL 
code. I'd like to change the terms for commercial products that utilize 
the protocol so that rather than protecting the code I am protecting the 
protocol specification.  The goals for this license are as follows:

1. Prevent fragmentation and ensure maximum interoperability
2. Prevent forking (the Microsoft steal-and-tweak)
3. Encourage maximum adoption
4. Generate revenue for Wason Technology, LLC to fund continuing development

Based on these goals, I have come up with the following (plain English) 
terms:

1. Free for academic and research use
2. Commercial products may use the protocol but must state prominently 
that it uses Robot Raconteur.  The free commercial tier will have a 
"Robot Raconteur Community" logo and be provided without warranty.  A 
certified tier will be available as a commercial service.
3. Commercial products on the free tier may only use unmodified official 
libraries provided by Wason Technology, LLC
4. Commercial products on the free tier may only use officially supplied 
channels (ie TCP, Serial).  Companies may not sell alternative channels 
without license.
5. Libraries that implement the protocol must state prominently that 
they use Robot Raconteur

I am aware that these terms are hard to enforce, however I think most 
companies will pay for having a warranty on the code.  Most of the 
devices running Robot Raconteur will be embedded, and the mindset is 
very different for these devices due to the difficulty in fixing bugs 
once they are deployed.

Any advice that opensource.org can provide in developing the licensing 
terms is greatly appreciated.  As stated in the objective, the goal is 
not to limit the free use of the software but instead to prevent 
fragmentation and provide a path for revenue generation from commercial 
products.

Thanks!

     -Dr. Wason