5 ms·

The model we are planning to use for the products at Plyint(https://plyint.com https://plyint.com) is basically the "Free Software Product" model in a SaaS form

by ahnick 7y ago

The model we are planning to use for the products at Plyint(https://plyint.com https://plyint.com) is basically the "Free Software Product" model in a SaaS format. How this will work is we will release the code with a proprietary license, but then if you want to use it in a product or pure open source fork, then you need to go to the trouble of removing the company name and product references. Once, that is done then the license will become an AGPL license that can be used as one would normally expect and any modifications to that code would need to be released again publicly. (This way any fork is required to contribute their code back to the public domain) I think this will introduce enough time delay that the SaaS service will establish itself. Plus, the product has to become popular enough for anyone to want to go through that level of effort. Also, any significant fork's code will be open source and we can reincorporate that into the original SaaS service as well.

teddyh 7y ago
> any modifications to that code would need to be released again publicly. Technically, that is incompatible with the AGPL (and the GPL, for that matter). Private modifications without distribution are permitted by the GPL/AGPL, and if you don’t allow them, you are violating the GPL/AGPL license by adding this additional restriction. Of course, this might not be a problem, for two reasons: Firstly, you might be the sole copyright holder, in which case you don’t need a license (it is instead you who give licenses to others), and secondly, for a SaaS product, any public use by a third party will make the AGPL kick in and require, from the third party, a release of the modified source. > Also, any significant fork's code will be open source and we can reincorporate that into the original SaaS service as well. Sure, but you will then no longer be the sole copyright holder, in which case you do need to adhere to the AGPL license terms, and you can’t require release of any modifications (except when the AGPL requires it; i.e. when the software is available publicly). Also, you can’t then release this code under a proprietary license, which you say is your plan. Note: If you’re OK with the release of modifications which AGPL requires, then everything is fine. It’s only if you insist on the release of all private modifications that you could run into trouble.
- ahnick 7y ago
  > Technically, that is incompatible with the AGPL (and the GPL, for that matter). Private modifications without distribution are permitted, and if you don’t allow them, you are violating the license. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant you make a modification AND offer a competing SaaS service. At that point under the AGPL that is considered distribution and would need to be open sourced. > Sure, but you will then no longer be the sole copyright holder, in which case you do need to adhere to the AGPL license terms, and you can’t require release of any modifications. Also, you can’t then release this code under a proprietary license, like you describe. Yes, so I was thinking about this as well. Basically what I'd like is an AGPL with a CLA that allows us to incorporate it back into the original service. I guess what would need to happen is specify in the original licensing of the product that the proprietary license converts to AGPL + CLA to Plyint.
  - teddyh 7y ago
    > an AGPL with a CLA You can’t require a CLA with AGPL. That would be an additional restriction, which AGPL does not allow. You can require a CLA for contributions to be accepted into your own distibution of the software (since you are not required to accept patches), but you can’t require anyone to sign or agree to a CLA if they recieved the software under AGPL. It wouldn’t be fair either, I think, for you to sell the contributions of third parties as part of your software under a proprietary license. You can’t have your cake and eat it too; either you develop stuff yourself and get to sell it under whatever license you like, or you accept contributions from third parties all over the world under a free license, and you then sell the software to your customers under the AGPL, not a proprietary license. You might be concerned about your customers then redistributing the AGPL software you sold them, but firstly, you might be able to fix this by requiring your customers to sign a contract with you (as part of the sale), where they agree not to do that, allowing you to sue them for breach of contract if they do. (I am not sure about the legal status of this scheme, however, and IIRC, the text of the GPL seems to want to at least discourage it.) Secondly, Red Hat allows CentOS to exist, and RH still makes a pretty penny selling RHE licenses. So this might not be a problem in practice. EDIT: See also this post, linked by jboynyc elswhere in this discussion: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality...

by ahnick 7y ago

teddyh 7y ago

> any modifications to that code would need to be released again publicly. Technically, that is incompatible with the AGPL (and the GPL, for that matter). Private modifications without distribution are permitted by the GPL/AGPL, and if you don’t allow them, you are violating the GPL/AGPL license by adding this additional restriction. Of course, this might not be a problem, for two reasons: Firstly, you might be the sole copyright holder, in which case you don’t need a license (it is instead you who give licenses to others), and secondly, for a SaaS product, any public use by a third party will make the AGPL kick in and require, from the third party, a release of the modified source. > Also, any significant fork's code will be open source and we can reincorporate that into the original SaaS service as well. Sure, but you will then no longer be the sole copyright holder, in which case you do need to adhere to the AGPL license terms, and you can’t require release of any modifications (except when the AGPL requires it; i.e. when the software is available publicly). Also, you can’t then release this code under a proprietary license, which you say is your plan. Note: If you’re OK with the release of modifications which AGPL requires, then everything is fine. It’s only if you insist on the release of all private modifications that you could run into trouble.

ahnick 7y ago
> Technically, that is incompatible with the AGPL (and the GPL, for that matter). Private modifications without distribution are permitted, and if you don’t allow them, you are violating the license. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant you make a modification AND offer a competing SaaS service. At that point under the AGPL that is considered distribution and would need to be open sourced. > Sure, but you will then no longer be the sole copyright holder, in which case you do need to adhere to the AGPL license terms, and you can’t require release of any modifications. Also, you can’t then release this code under a proprietary license, like you describe. Yes, so I was thinking about this as well. Basically what I'd like is an AGPL with a CLA that allows us to incorporate it back into the original service. I guess what would need to happen is specify in the original licensing of the product that the proprietary license converts to AGPL + CLA to Plyint.
- teddyh 7y ago
  > an AGPL with a CLA You can’t require a CLA with AGPL. That would be an additional restriction, which AGPL does not allow. You can require a CLA for contributions to be accepted into your own distibution of the software (since you are not required to accept patches), but you can’t require anyone to sign or agree to a CLA if they recieved the software under AGPL. It wouldn’t be fair either, I think, for you to sell the contributions of third parties as part of your software under a proprietary license. You can’t have your cake and eat it too; either you develop stuff yourself and get to sell it under whatever license you like, or you accept contributions from third parties all over the world under a free license, and you then sell the software to your customers under the AGPL, not a proprietary license. You might be concerned about your customers then redistributing the AGPL software you sold them, but firstly, you might be able to fix this by requiring your customers to sign a contract with you (as part of the sale), where they agree not to do that, allowing you to sue them for breach of contract if they do. (I am not sure about the legal status of this scheme, however, and IIRC, the text of the GPL seems to want to at least discourage it.) Secondly, Red Hat allows CentOS to exist, and RH still makes a pretty penny selling RHE licenses. So this might not be a problem in practice. EDIT: See also this post, linked by jboynyc elswhere in this discussion: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality...