Re: draft of a new Open Source Commercial License

[Ivan Vučica]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Pirmin Braun <pb@intars.de> wrote:

Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:34:18 +0100
schrieb David Chisnall <theraven@sucs.org> :

> On 18 Sep 2013, at 13:57, Markus Hitter <mah@jump-ing.de> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps this distinction is too complex. Non-commercial use -> free,
> > commercial use -> pay. Things have to be simple.
>
> Non-commercial use is a sticky point, especially for web apps.  For example, if I run a free service that runs the web app and allows anyone to use it, am I commercial?  What happens if I put ads on it?  What about if the ads are only covering the cost of hosting it?  The FSF web site has a lot of text about the problems with NC licenses, so I won't bother reiterating them.
>

I knew this would come. It's the 0,1 % of all cases that make things complicated.
We just won't hunt after them. If in doubt, you're allowed. If obviously cheating, we'll find out. Sooner or later.

How about a strictly noncommercial license, with all commercial use having to go through your hosted subscription service?

It's still not free/open source software, and IntarS would certainly end up in the 'non-free' section of Debian (even if accepted there), but it would make intended use quite clear.

I do understand you have existing customers, but it might be an interesting solution.

This mailing list, on the other hand, is probably a bad place to discuss a business plan. As it stands, the license itself does not seem to be FLOSS (due to the discrimination clause). This has little to do with 'radical' approach to FLOSS; it's simply not providing end users with all freedoms. As mentioned, free and open source licenses typically deal with redistribution restrictions, not with use restrictions. I doubt the discussion will get any further than this...

--

Ivan Vučica

ivan@vucica.net