[License-discuss] Open Source license question

[Chris B]

Thanks, Philippe and others!

Useful content for me to go through. I think the biggest issue that I am
hearing is the separation of what is "paid content".

The goal for me was to *allow individuals and business*
- to use the software freely
- to modify the software if needed to meet their needs

And to prevent someone from taking the project, rewire the paid portion,
and resell it at a discounted rate. This was for me to protect myself to
avoid someone else (say AWS) to offer a "managed CapRover" service and
rewire the paid code to go through their own system. So basically, to avoid
something like this
<https://www.geekwire.com/2018/concerned-cloud-providers-confluent-becomes-latest-open-source-company-set-new-restrictions-usage/>
.

The goal is not to deceive, but to ensure that individuals and businesses
can freely use and enjoy the product, but preventing others from
repackaging and reselling the paid parts. e.g. Ubuntu doesn't allow you to
repackage and resell the paid features.

I tried to be as clear as possible in the license terms, but it looks like
it can be perceived negatively because it has an appendix. I will have to
look into finding a new license that matches my needs.

But in the meantime, I want to hear why some other OSS licensed projects
have Terms, e.g. VSCode is MIT licensed and has terms:
https://code.visualstudio.com/license





On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 2:58 AM Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne at nexb.com>
wrote:

> Hi Chris:
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 11:32 AM Chris B <kindlysendme at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am an open source project maintainer and I was referred to this
> > mailing list recently as a good place to ask questions.
> >
> > I was recently told by a community member that I should not be using
> > the term "Open Source" as it has legal implications and the project
> > doesn't fully embrace that term. Here is the argument:
> >
> > 1- The program has an optional paid component (not open source).
> > The core program (that is open source) is fully functional as a
> stand-alone
> > application. But the user has the option to pay for extra features that
> are
> > not open source
> >
> > 2- The program has an optional telemetry that users can opt in / opt out
> > before even installing the program.
> >
> > 3- Because of 1 & 2, there is a License Terms doc that outlines what is
> > open source and what is not, and how the telemetry data is being used
> > and what is being sent out.
> >
> > I have personally seen all of the above in other software that have an
> > "Open Source" label. But wanted to check with this group if there are
> > any legal implications that I am missing here.
>
> I reckon from other emails in this thread that this seems to be about
> this issue [1]
>
> I guess the project has grown popular, and built user goodwill also
> because it was Apache-licensed.
>
> From a casual look, I find these recent [2] licensing term changes [3]
> and extra T&Cs [4] to be confusing.
> It is not clear to me what is open source, Apache-licensed vs. what is
> proprietary code.
> I would treat the whole thing as a risky proprietary license because I
> cannot make sense of anything.
> I feel that I am likely to be pwned unless I buy something. And I
> cannot find a way to easily buy anything on the website [5]
>
> The biggest value of OSI-approved licenses is we have well known terms
> with no head scratching to determine what they mean.
> The license terms at issue here break this expectation and well
> established community norm.
>
> I cannot comment on what this misleading usage of open source may mean
> wrt. a possible OSI trademark violation.
> Or the possible misuse/changes of the Apache license, which may be
> another issue to deal with the Apache Software Foundation.
>
> Instead, my advice would be to eschew confusion and avoid crossing
> streams by keeping things clearly separated!
>
> - Keep the open source project clearly open source under an Apache license.
> - And move the proprietary code elsewhere in a separate repo and do
> not pretend this is open source.
>
> Unless the goal is confusion, quid-pro-quo and deception in misleading
> users to believe this is a bona fide Apache license.
>
> Your users will thank you for this.
>
> [1] https://github.com/caprover/caprover/issues/2036
> [2]
> https://github.com/caprover/caprover/commit/ea1b06a1a6c1d6d153348572bb274bb22cd31b77
> [3] https://github.com/caprover/caprover/blob/master/LICENSE
> [4]
> https://github.com/caprover/caprover/blob/master/TERMS_AND_CONDITIONS.md
> [5] https://caprover.com/
>
> --
> Cheers
> Philippe Ombredanne
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240410/30ba6025/attachment.html>