[License-discuss] licenses for hosted services

[William Edney]

Miles -

It's working well for us but our product is a toolkit that folks use to
build custom apps with and, as Larry mentioned earlier, many folks in our
target market want to keep their code proprietary, hence they purchase the
waiver to the RPL. The RPL is purpose-built for that sort of situation so,
depending on what you're trying to do, YMMV.

Cheers,

- Bill

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
wrote:

> 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>
> 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] On
>> Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:15 PM
>> To: 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]
>> > On Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
>> > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:36 AM
>> > To: 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
>> > 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at opensource.org
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing listLicense-discuss at opensource.orghttps://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
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160805/921b0fdb/attachment.html>