Fwd: Re: [Ossi] New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License
I'm forwarding this message onto this list because this is where the thread belongs. I apologise for posting to the active development list.
----- Begin Forwarded Message -----
Date: 2004.01.25 14:27
Subject: Re: [Ossi] New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License[rschi@rsmba.biz]
From: Richard Schilling <rschilling@nationalinformatics.net>
The purpose of the license is very simple. It clarifies that the job of providing value-added, support, and other services for a software product is the job of the original developers and not others. If the original developers want to transfer that right then they can. It's the original developers' job to provide service, training, support, custom development, and value added services like web hosting using their product. It is not acceptable in my view for a software developer to work on a software product just so some other company can try to make a living by running their website with that software. It is the responsibility, however, of the software developer to make sure that the training, services, and value-added whatever are provided in a quality way.
It is not the goal of this license to allow a high school student to use a developer's software product to earn money by programming. It's the goal of this license to ensure that my highly trained employees with MBAs and masters degrees have a means to be paid for their time on a project, and to protect that means indefinitely.
On 2004.01.25 11:05 Robert Munro wrote:
A non-contractual software license rests on the rights of the copyright
holder, but Open Source copyleft licenses operate by granting of rights
not by imposing contract terms like submitting back changes and servicer
restrictions, sole-source distribution requirements and control of code.
I think this is a source of confusion for many who read this license, Robert. This license is not a copyleft license. It's permission a developer can give the end user to use his/her software while retaining the exclusive right to provide services for hire on the product. The purpose of this license is to let the developer earn money for services. Is it a barrier for other companies who want to provide services on that developer's product? You bet.
Some features of the proposal are also unenforceable just as a matter of
practicality. If the users have the source code, how do you propose to
restrict who will work on that? Obviously you can't, not in real life.
Obviously if the product is distributed illegally but secretly there's no way to detect the violation. Any seller of books has this problem. It's a question of what agreement you have in place when you finally do discover the problem, and it's a question of making it publically and contractually clear what the developer wants.
In fact, such a servicer restriction (#4) would operate counter to users
compliance with point #3, that "any" modifications have to be submitted
back to the developer. If a user has a non-approved programmer resolve
a bug, do you actually expect them to admit it by submitting code back?
I would suggest that any potential contributor work directly with the initial developer to resolve any issues. If the developer really wants help then he/she should be expected to allow the contributor to license their work in a similar fashion. For example, if I write software under this license, and I need help, I am going to be able to offer some kind of living wage to the contributor because I know that I am always going to be the primary source for services related to the product. Everyone on the development team gets paid.
Can the project stall if no one wants to pay me and my contributors for our time? Sure you bet - that's called a lack of demand and it means we'll invest our time into something else.
Open Source users contribute code back to active projects because that's
less work than reintegrating their local modifications after an upgrade,
and for other reasons such as pride of authorship and genuine altruism.
They also have security of knowing that a valuable Open Source software
product likely won't disappear if the vendor company folds or otherwise
ceases maintaining and improving the software. The proposal kills this,
in points #4 thru #6. Those would also tend to cripple users incentive
to contribute to the software, since they could not be assured continued
access to the evolving product. What happens if you go out of business?
If I go out of business I can transfer the rights of the license to someone else or sell them. You're right, there is a danger in having a product simply dissappear - the same problem we would have with cars if a particular car manufacturer dissappeared. We would not have that make of car available anymore. But, I maintain that as long as the original development team can get paid for their time this is much less likely to happen.
These observations don't include the apparent conflict between points #4
through #6 and #8 with #7, that all contributors retain their copyrights
to their own code. Your proposal would take away most of their rights,
so it's a little disingenuous to claim that they'd somehow retain those.
Not at all. You can retain copyright to your work and still negotiate a license for someone to use your work. For example, if a person wants to contribute something to my original work, I don't need his/her copyrights. What I need is permission from that person to include their work. And, of course the contributor would be wise to negotiate some kind of wage for his/her time in making the contribution.
Point #8 is simply unnecessary. One of the major problems popular Open
Source projects have is the overloading of main distribution servers at
significant upgrades. Unauthorized, corrupted mirrors are almost never
encountered. Users most typically have to be begged to use FTP mirrors.
Allowing a high school student to download my code, change it and put it on their server is not enough quality control for my taste. This point is ackward for many I know, but as we release products and people see the quality is there this won't be an issue.
I'd respectfully suggest that you think about what you really want your
alternative license to accomplish, what rights in copyright you control
and can license (as opposed to specifying under software contract terms)
to your users, and rely more on user incentives inherent in Open Source.Since the GPL permits dual-licensing, you might look into that approach.
Thanks for the suggestion - we do constantly review the existing licenses to determine what is best for our customers and employees. Dual licensing under the GPL presents too many complications and expense for use to manage it efficiently.
Richard Schilling
----- End Forwarded Message -----
----- End Forwarded Message -----
Import Notes
Reference msg id not found: 1075057551.16114.165.camel@griffin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Well, I think this type of license defies the general idea of an Open Source
License. A single supplier open source license would be a closed license with
source handed to the customer (mostly under a non-disclosure term).
A single supplier open source license simply is no open source, since nobody
could benefit from the source - thus it's not "open". Is it even legally ok
to read code licensed like this ? It might influence the implementation of a
similar problem.
What is the idea behind handing source to anybody where the source may not be
used in any way ? The only benefit I can see would be under a special
agreement to the customer in case the "single supplier" goes out of business.
Then the customer could be granted rights to develop/use the product on an
ongoing basis for his business. But this is nothing that needs an open source
license - it just needs an agreement with the customer (and handing out the
source of course)
Also - if it's not acceptable for a developer to work on a software product
that is open source, then don't. But please also tell those developers to not
use any open source tools/languages/operating systems - since it might be
unacceptable for the community to give anything to those developers.....
Although nobody really requires you to contribute to any open source project -
it is considered nice and fair to return some of the favors by contributing
back (at least a little contribution, error testing, whatever - nobody asks
you to do full time development on that project)
You could still open source part of the project and keep the rest closed. For
example reportlab (reportlab.com) used this scheme quite successfully: The
open sourced the pdf generating library, but didn't open the XML description
language and parser which uses the library. Doing so promotes their product -
everyone can play with the library, but if you need it in large scale you
most likely go back to reportlab and buy the addon's and services.
My $0.02
UC
On Sunday 25 January 2004 03:10 pm, Richard Schilling wrote:
I'm forwarding this message onto this list because this is where the thread
belongs. I apologise for posting to the active development list.----- Begin Forwarded Message -----
Date: 2004.01.25 14:27
Subject: Re: [Ossi] New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source
License[rschi@rsmba.biz] From: Richard Schilling
<rschilling@nationalinformatics.net>The purpose of the license is very simple. It clarifies that the job of
providing value-added, support, and other services for a software product
is the job of the original developers and not others. If the original
developers want to transfer that right then they can. It's the original
developers' job to provide service, training, support, custom development,
and value added services like web hosting using their product. It is not
acceptable in my view for a software developer to work on a software
product just so some other company can try to make a living by running
their website with that software. It is the responsibility, however, of
the software developer to make sure that the training, services, and
value-added whatever are provided in a quality way.It is not the goal of this license to allow a high school student to use a
developer's software product to earn money by programming. It's the goal
of this license to ensure that my highly trained employees with MBAs and
masters degrees have a means to be paid for their time on a project, and to
protect that means indefinitely.On 2004.01.25 11:05 Robert Munro wrote:
A non-contractual software license rests on the rights of the copyright
holder, but Open Source copyleft licenses operate by granting of rights
not by imposing contract terms like submitting back changes and servicer
restrictions, sole-source distribution requirements and control of code.I think this is a source of confusion for many who read this license,
Robert. This license is not a copyleft license. It's permission a
developer can give the end user to use his/her software while retaining the
exclusive right to provide services for hire on the product. The purpose
of this license is to let the developer earn money for services. Is it a
barrier for other companies who want to provide services on that
developer's product? You bet.Some features of the proposal are also unenforceable just as a matter of
practicality. If the users have the source code, how do you propose to
restrict who will work on that? Obviously you can't, not in real life.Obviously if the product is distributed illegally but secretly there's no
way to detect the violation. Any seller of books has this problem. It's a
question of what agreement you have in place when you finally do discover
the problem, and it's a question of making it publically and contractually
clear what the developer wants.In fact, such a servicer restriction (#4) would operate counter to users
compliance with point #3, that "any" modifications have to be submitted
back to the developer. If a user has a non-approved programmer resolve
a bug, do you actually expect them to admit it by submitting code back?I would suggest that any potential contributor work directly with the
initial developer to resolve any issues. If the developer really wants
help then he/she should be expected to allow the contributor to license
their work in a similar fashion. For example, if I write software under
this license, and I need help, I am going to be able to offer some kind of
living wage to the contributor because I know that I am always going to be
the primary source for services related to the product. Everyone on the
development team gets paid.Can the project stall if no one wants to pay me and my contributors for our
time? Sure you bet - that's called a lack of demand and it means we'll
invest our time into something else.Open Source users contribute code back to active projects because that's
less work than reintegrating their local modifications after an upgrade,
and for other reasons such as pride of authorship and genuine altruism.
They also have security of knowing that a valuable Open Source software
product likely won't disappear if the vendor company folds or otherwise
ceases maintaining and improving the software. The proposal kills this,
in points #4 thru #6. Those would also tend to cripple users incentive
to contribute to the software, since they could not be assured continued
access to the evolving product. What happens if you go out of business?If I go out of business I can transfer the rights of the license to someone
else or sell them. You're right, there is a danger in having a product
simply dissappear - the same problem we would have with cars if a
particular car manufacturer dissappeared. We would not have that make of
car available anymore. But, I maintain that as long as the original
development team can get paid for their time this is much less likely to
happen.These observations don't include the apparent conflict between points #4
through #6 and #8 with #7, that all contributors retain their copyrights
to their own code. Your proposal would take away most of their rights,
so it's a little disingenuous to claim that they'd somehow retain those.Not at all. You can retain copyright to your work and still negotiate a
license for someone to use your work. For example, if a person wants to
contribute something to my original work, I don't need his/her copyrights.
What I need is permission from that person to include their work. And, of
course the contributor would be wise to negotiate some kind of wage for
his/her time in making the contribution.Point #8 is simply unnecessary. One of the major problems popular Open
Source projects have is the overloading of main distribution servers at
significant upgrades. Unauthorized, corrupted mirrors are almost never
encountered. Users most typically have to be begged to use FTP mirrors.Allowing a high school student to download my code, change it and put it on
their server is not enough quality control for my taste. This point is
ackward for many I know, but as we release products and people see the
quality is there this won't be an issue.I'd respectfully suggest that you think about what you really want your
alternative license to accomplish, what rights in copyright you control
and can license (as opposed to specifying under software contract terms)
to your users, and rely more on user incentives inherent in Open Source.Since the GPL permits dual-licensing, you might look into that approach.
Thanks for the suggestion - we do constantly review the existing licenses
to determine what is best for our customers and employees. Dual licensing
under the GPL presents too many complications and expense for use to manage
it efficiently.Richard Schilling
----- End Forwarded Message -----
----- End Forwarded Message --------------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
- --
UC
- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAFFaHjqGXBvRToM4RAo8wAKCxW2+FMfNJddpiRNm73oi1qhAZwQCgl9ZL
N+PXFtMD2dInxtwBpBtSrRM=
=nfIa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'll add my $0.02, then. I promise that this is the last I say about any
of this in any of the lists.
This must be the best troll ever. Robert sent this to two lists I'm on,
in both cases CCing at least one other list (each). In all cases, we are
talking about development lists. In all cases, his "proposed license" is
incompatible with the license used at the projects, which basically
means that his claims that he intends to "contribute" code to the
project seems simply false (and in any case irrelevant).
I think Robert is practicing something I call Sending Public
All-received Messages. I think the best thing to do is not answer it
(which is what you are supposed to do with trolls), and in any case, not
on the list.
This license goes counter to the most fundemental part of free/open
source software - the software's copyright holder lack of control over
the software's user. As such, I think we can all simply call it "not
open source". If Robert wishes to prove us wrong, he is welcome to get
OSI to approve his precious license. Until he does, let's not give him
incentives for keeping disrupting the very important activity that is
this mailing list.
Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1What is the idea behind handing source to anybody where the source may not be
used in any way ? The only benefit I can see would be under a special
agreement to the customer in case the "single supplier" goes out of business.
No. Robert is trying to get people to fix his software's bugs and
improve it, but still charge money for the software and the support. An
admireable notion, no doubt, but one that even Microsoft did not fully
manage to make take off.
Also - if it's not acceptable for a developer to work on a software product
that is open source, then don't. But please also tell those developers to not
use any open source tools/languages/operating systems - since it might be
unacceptable for the community to give anything to those developers.....
No, see, that's something you can't do. It may irritate you that people
who publicly attack the open source movement use open source tools, but
the very basic notion behind free software is that you let even these
people use the tools. You don't limit genetic research. You don't limit
governmental and military uses. You don't limit according to user's view
on open source software.
Although nobody really requires you to contribute to any open source project -
it is considered nice and fair to return some of the favors by contributing
back (at least a little contribution, error testing, whatever - nobody asks
you to do full time development on that project)
Robert doesn't mind the "back" part. Just the "contributing" part. He
can't gasp the idea that he is giving up exclusive control over the code
he wrote.
You could still open source part of the project and keep the rest closed. For
example reportlab (reportlab.com) used this scheme quite successfully: The
open sourced the pdf generating library, but didn't open the XML description
language and parser which uses the library. Doing so promotes their product -
everyone can play with the library, but if you need it in large scale you
most likely go back to reportlab and buy the addon's and services.
Don't use the term "open source" with him. The man is certain that his
license meets all of the OSI definitions. Like I said before, the best
thing to do is to let him prove that by asking him to get his license
OSI approved.
My $0.02
UC
In any case, I have seen him post his SPAM to this list, the freebsd
list and the wine list. I find the notion that one person can make
significant contribution to such diverse three projects in such a short
period of time (that was his first post on both the postgresql and the
wine lists) a little suspect. Since the license he is offering to make
his contributions under is compatible with neither the BSD license
(freebsd and postgresql) and the LGPL (wine), and since the wine license
is also incompatible to his license, I think we can safetly disregard
his offer for code help with these projects under these terms.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Systems Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/
Why are we discussing this on a Postgres list? It seems completely
off-topic.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:10:40PM -0800, Richard Schilling wrote:
I'm forwarding this message onto this list because this is where
the thread belongs.
With all due respect to your efforts, I don't think this list _is_
where the discussion belongs, if for no other reason than that
license wars in general are not really welcome here.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner