4 ms·

But the GP wrote: “For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees” emphasis mine. If this requirement comes from a cla

But the GP wrote: “For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees” emphasis mine. If this requirement comes from a clause in the license then it violates the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd because it imposes a restriction on the use of the software.

sam_goody 5y ago
IANL, and am always willing to learn. What clause does this violate exactly? I would guess that you mean one of the following, but I do not see any violation: > 8. "not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution." > 9. "restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. " > 6. "restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research" In addition, that is the "The Open Source Definition", but the phrase "open source" cannot be copyrighted (there is legal precedent, IIRC with Lindows) . According to the DoD, Open Source Software means "software for which the human-readable source code is available for use, study, re-use, modification, enhancement, and re-distribution by the users of such software" [0] In practice, there are many "Open Source" licenses that allow paid licensing [2]. The most well known competitor, FOSS, only slightly differentiates itself with the phrase "Open Software" and openly allows fees. [0]: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/#q-what-is-open-source-software-oss https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/#q-what-... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...
- adament 5y ago
  Note that both the FSF, OSI and DoD (in your own link) agree that in practice the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition are equivalent. So if you believe your license is open source but not free software, then you are very probably wrong.
- adament 5y ago
  Let us first agree on what we are arguing. You proposed that: > For most software projects, there should be a way to buy a commercial support license. > For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees. I interpret this to mean that: You impose in the license of the software that if you are an organization over X employees, you are not entitled to use and distribute the software under that license instead you must hold the commercial license or you must in addition to the normal license hold the commercial support license. In the first case(where the normal license grant does not apply to sufficiently sized orgs) I believe you impose a restriction of use on the software in a specific field of endeavor in contradiction with section 6. in the OSD. In my view it is clear that if you require an additional commercial support license for some users but not everybody you violate section 7. as the rights to the program is restricted for some parties (orgs with over X employees only has those rights if they also acquire a commercial support license): “7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.“ Now it might very well be that you had another mechanism in mind for imposing your requirement of “Orgs over X employees must hold a commercial support license”. In that case it might very well be a different mechanism in the definition that conflicts with your mechanism, but I cannot see how you can achieve your aim of imposing a requirement on usage of the software for some users without contradicting the spirit of the open source definition which says that you must grant the same rights to all users of your software. I cannot find in your link [2] what you mean by the phrase: “In practice, there are many "Open Source" licenses that allow paid licensing [2]”. Usually when people speak of paid support licensing for open source (or free software) that is an OPTIONAL support license or a separate commercial license(see the QT license options) that you acquire the software under, and it does not conflict with either free software or open source software. My opposition is only your stipulation that the commercial license be required for some users of the software, and it is this requirement part that I claim conflicts with the Open Source Definition. Note that it is perfectly valid to charge people to obtain your open source software from you, but you are not allowed to impose restrictions on their ability to redistribute that software (including source) to others for free, hence this is probably not the solution you are looking for?
- commoner 5y ago
  A software license that prohibits use by individuals or groups (of any size) who do not pay a fee would violate section 5 of the Open Source Definition: > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. It's okay to charge for open source software, but for software to be open source, the license cannot discriminate against users who do not pay the developer. This means: - If someone pays for open source software, the license cannot require the user to make any additional payments. This prevents the developer from imposing a recurring fee to use the same version of the software via the license, but the developer is still free to charge for future software releases. - If someone pays for open source software and then shares it with other people, the license cannot require the people who use copies of the software to pay the developer. Software releases under your proposed license would be source-available, but not open source. As a sibling comment mentions, the DoD FAQ you linked describes the Open Source Definition as 1 of 2 "industry review processes" that a software license should pass to be considered open source.

sam_goody 5y ago

IANL, and am always willing to learn. What clause does this violate exactly? I would guess that you mean one of the following, but I do not see any violation: > 8. "not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution." > 9. "restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. " > 6. "restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research" In addition, that is the "The Open Source Definition", but the phrase "open source" cannot be copyrighted (there is legal precedent, IIRC with Lindows) . According to the DoD, Open Source Software means "software for which the human-readable source code is available for use, study, re-use, modification, enhancement, and re-distribution by the users of such software" [0] In practice, there are many "Open Source" licenses that allow paid licensing [2]. The most well known competitor, FOSS, only slightly differentiates itself with the phrase "Open Software" and openly allows fees. [0]: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/#q-what-is-open-source-software-oss https://dodcio.defense.gov/Open-Source-Software-FAQ/#q-what-... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...

adament 5y ago
Note that both the FSF, OSI and DoD (in your own link) agree that in practice the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition are equivalent. So if you believe your license is open source but not free software, then you are very probably wrong.
adament 5y ago
Let us first agree on what we are arguing. You proposed that: > For most software projects, there should be a way to buy a commercial support license. > For many, such a license should be required for use in any org which is over X employees. I interpret this to mean that: You impose in the license of the software that if you are an organization over X employees, you are not entitled to use and distribute the software under that license instead you must hold the commercial license or you must in addition to the normal license hold the commercial support license. In the first case(where the normal license grant does not apply to sufficiently sized orgs) I believe you impose a restriction of use on the software in a specific field of endeavor in contradiction with section 6. in the OSD. In my view it is clear that if you require an additional commercial support license for some users but not everybody you violate section 7. as the rights to the program is restricted for some parties (orgs with over X employees only has those rights if they also acquire a commercial support license): “7. Distribution of License The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.“ Now it might very well be that you had another mechanism in mind for imposing your requirement of “Orgs over X employees must hold a commercial support license”. In that case it might very well be a different mechanism in the definition that conflicts with your mechanism, but I cannot see how you can achieve your aim of imposing a requirement on usage of the software for some users without contradicting the spirit of the open source definition which says that you must grant the same rights to all users of your software. I cannot find in your link [2] what you mean by the phrase: “In practice, there are many "Open Source" licenses that allow paid licensing [2]”. Usually when people speak of paid support licensing for open source (or free software) that is an OPTIONAL support license or a separate commercial license(see the QT license options) that you acquire the software under, and it does not conflict with either free software or open source software. My opposition is only your stipulation that the commercial license be required for some users of the software, and it is this requirement part that I claim conflicts with the Open Source Definition. Note that it is perfectly valid to charge people to obtain your open source software from you, but you are not allowed to impose restrictions on their ability to redistribute that software (including source) to others for free, hence this is probably not the solution you are looking for?
commoner 5y ago
A software license that prohibits use by individuals or groups (of any size) who do not pay a fee would violate section 5 of the Open Source Definition: > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. It's okay to charge for open source software, but for software to be open source, the license cannot discriminate against users who do not pay the developer. This means: - If someone pays for open source software, the license cannot require the user to make any additional payments. This prevents the developer from imposing a recurring fee to use the same version of the software via the license, but the developer is still free to charge for future software releases. - If someone pays for open source software and then shares it with other people, the license cannot require the people who use copies of the software to pay the developer. Software releases under your proposed license would be source-available, but not open source. As a sibling comment mentions, the DoD FAQ you linked describes the Open Source Definition as 1 of 2 "industry review processes" that a software license should pass to be considered open source.