4 ms·
thanks for taking a look. yes, having to pay for use at scale is one of the key features (though perhaps the scale should be 1000 cores instead of 10). for your
by nqzero 7y ago
thanks for taking a look. yes, having to pay for use at scale is one of the key features (though perhaps the scale should be 1000 cores instead of 10). for your 3rd bullet, one key feature is that the code submission can likewise include a cost, ie it's symmetric
i'm not familiar with any commercial licenses that are close, but i'm interested. do you have any links or suggestions ?
- runako 7y agoThe way I wrote it, it should be more obvious that this isn't an open-source license per se. What you want a commercial software where you offer exceptions to certain classes of users. Sometimes, this is called dual-licensing. But overall, the controlling license for use of the software is necessarily a proprietary license of some kind.
- nqzero 7y agoi chose the name "Paid Use Permissive License" thinking that that would make it clear that it's not Open Source. but i'll see if there's any way that i can make it more obvious which class of users do you see as receiving exceptions ? one of my goals in writing it was to limit (via the assurances) the degree to which an owner could segment a market, eg it requires published prices, and if they provide low-cost licenses to one user, that user can resell them
- runako 7y agoI'm not sure who your audience is. If I'm shipping software under a commercial license of some kind (like your license), I want my attorney to vet the license for my jurisdiction(s) before I use it. My attorney would likely not choose this license (because it's not written by an attorney, and does not have features attorneys would expect to see in a software license). If I'm selling software, I would generally expect it to be licensed under a bespoke license. This doesn't fit that need.