3 ms·

I like many things about datomic and was in a position to use datomic for a product twice. Each time when I looked at the license it basically said cognitect wi

by patrec 10y ago

I like many things about datomic and was in a position to use datomic for a product twice. Each time when I looked at the license it basically said cognitect will make you your bitch now and you're not allowed to talk about it to anyone. We live in a world of ridiculous software licenses, but it was the most ridiculous license I remember ever having encountered. This for a product which required a big leap of faith already (designing your data access around a radically different DB with enormous lock-in, supplied by a small consultancy). Thankfully on superficial inspection it seems like some of the most egregious clauses have gone (Ctrl+F for "disrepute" and "immoral" here: https://blog.goodstuff.im/datomic_license https://blog.goodstuff.im/datomic_license to get a flavour). I'm wondering though: has anyone here ever used datomic after some laywer looked at their previous license? In the unlikely case anyone from datomic cares to comment: did changing the license help sales?

slgeorge 10y ago
I've only read the blog post you linked and scanned the current license. I don't find anything unusual in them for a proprietary license. Most of the cited examples in the blog post are common standard language used in license agreements. I'd say the interpretation of what they means is idiosyncratic. One could argue that the clauses were not nice, but that's a different argument to the one presented. Their current Eula you linked is pretty short, I'd probably argue with the indemnity, but not unless I was paying enough money that someone would care. Average legal fee to discuss a license ~600 USD an hour, their license is 2,500 USD. Most people have tougher license terms in their office lease!
- patrec 10y ago
  Well, maybe I'm wrong and the license is in fact reasonable. I'd be more inclined to believe that if you are either a laywer or can provide some examples of software licenses for non-obscure enterprise software that have similar clauses that make you swear never to perform any act or omission(!) that might adversely affect Cognitect's interests or use the software for "immoral/unethical" purposes etc. I can't recall ever seeing that in any product I evaluated. There's a bunch of other problematic stuff that would make me wary of using such a vendor, but that's not atypical (benchmarking etc.). To be clear, I don't have a bad opinion about Cognitect (other than their choice of license).
  - slgeorge 10y ago
    It's the Internet so who needs skills or experience to comment! But, I did run a commercial team (lawyers and negotiators) for a software company that handled hundreds of incoming and outgoing licenses: including ones to major software vendors like Salesforce, Oracle, Microsoft and IBM. I am not a lawyer though ... but, sometimes I play one on the Web. I'm not trying to tell you the terms are "reasonable", that's a matter of opinion. I'm telling you that the way in which they are interpreted in the blog post is not in line with how they would commonly be read. It is not a fair reading of the terms as far as I can see - consequently saying they have a "bad choice" of license makes no sense since the clauses are being cherry-picked. Second, people often think licenses have to be 'reasonable', they don't. They have to be enforceable and in your businesses interests - Cognitect clearly thought those terms were in their interests. I'm not going to comment on the clauses further, you've clearly read them one way and I was offering the observation that I would not have come at them from that perspective. I guess the best way to have found out their intent would have been to call them up and ask them, getting clarity added when you negotiated the deal terms where it was required. Most commonly, people have terms in their licenses because of specific issues they are concerned about and when you understand that something can be done to "fix" the difference of perspectives. Finally, the new license looks eminently reasonable, so perhaps they noted the concerns and have now fixed them, no?

by patrec 10y ago

slgeorge 10y ago

I've only read the blog post you linked and scanned the current license. I don't find anything unusual in them for a proprietary license. Most of the cited examples in the blog post are common standard language used in license agreements. I'd say the interpretation of what they means is idiosyncratic. One could argue that the clauses were not nice, but that's a different argument to the one presented. Their current Eula you linked is pretty short, I'd probably argue with the indemnity, but not unless I was paying enough money that someone would care. Average legal fee to discuss a license ~600 USD an hour, their license is 2,500 USD. Most people have tougher license terms in their office lease!

patrec 10y ago
Well, maybe I'm wrong and the license is in fact reasonable. I'd be more inclined to believe that if you are either a laywer or can provide some examples of software licenses for non-obscure enterprise software that have similar clauses that make you swear never to perform any act or omission(!) that might adversely affect Cognitect's interests or use the software for "immoral/unethical" purposes etc. I can't recall ever seeing that in any product I evaluated. There's a bunch of other problematic stuff that would make me wary of using such a vendor, but that's not atypical (benchmarking etc.). To be clear, I don't have a bad opinion about Cognitect (other than their choice of license).
- slgeorge 10y ago
  It's the Internet so who needs skills or experience to comment! But, I did run a commercial team (lawyers and negotiators) for a software company that handled hundreds of incoming and outgoing licenses: including ones to major software vendors like Salesforce, Oracle, Microsoft and IBM. I am not a lawyer though ... but, sometimes I play one on the Web. I'm not trying to tell you the terms are "reasonable", that's a matter of opinion. I'm telling you that the way in which they are interpreted in the blog post is not in line with how they would commonly be read. It is not a fair reading of the terms as far as I can see - consequently saying they have a "bad choice" of license makes no sense since the clauses are being cherry-picked. Second, people often think licenses have to be 'reasonable', they don't. They have to be enforceable and in your businesses interests - Cognitect clearly thought those terms were in their interests. I'm not going to comment on the clauses further, you've clearly read them one way and I was offering the observation that I would not have come at them from that perspective. I guess the best way to have found out their intent would have been to call them up and ask them, getting clarity added when you negotiated the deal terms where it was required. Most commonly, people have terms in their licenses because of specific issues they are concerned about and when you understand that something can be done to "fix" the difference of perspectives. Finally, the new license looks eminently reasonable, so perhaps they noted the concerns and have now fixed them, no?