11 ms·

You're not prohibiting anyone from using it. Nothing is stopping a business from using it, especially if the price is fair. So does OSI have complete authority

You're not prohibiting anyone from using it. Nothing is stopping a business from using it, especially if the price is fair. So does OSI have complete authority over the definition of OS? Does their definition restrict dual licenses? Have they thought maybe creating more lucrative OS models/standards would help their cause?

teddyh 3y ago
> So does OSI have complete authority over the definition of OS? Yes. > Does their definition restrict dual licenses? No.
- pickingdinner 3y ago
  > Yes Except GNU and OSI are in conflict? > No Then you can have an OS license with a business license or even an FU license (arbitrarily horrible license).
  - ghaff 3y ago
    >Except GNU and OSI are in conflict? Not at all. The various GPL licenses are OSI-approved. Though the GPL may restrict your ability to offer an open core version of the project. I think what you're missing is that if a project is licensed under an open source license, you can dual license it--including only offering some components under the proprietary license, i.e. open core--but the existence of that dual license doesn't take away any of the rights associated with the open source license on the open source portion of the codebase. But dual license doesn't mean that the use of an open source codebase can can be carved up into allowable uses under the open source license and allowable uses under a proprietary license.
    - pickingdinner 3y ago
      Conflict may have been too strong a word. In argument maybe? From what I understood, GNU was/is kind of a big deal, and OSI didn't have a monopoly on OS, or otherwise they would have on GNU also. > if a project is licensed under an open source license, you can dual license it Confirming this is all I am after. I wasn't talking about carving anything up, though that sounds fun.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        >Conflict may have been too strong a word. In argument maybe? The FSF (including GNU) and OSI have their own histories, missions, and philosophies (to some degree although there's no real conflict about what open source/free software are). Yes, there are politics around both organizations but that's mostly inside baseball from the perspective of the average software consumer. There are any number of other non-profits in the open source space that also do their own various things. And, yes, you can dual license. But understand that if one of the licenses is, say, MIT, a commercial entity can still use the software without paying no matter what the other license says. i.e. you can't use the second license to take away rights from the first license.
        pickingdinner 3y ago
        Then dual licensing is not possible? It's a simple IF statement. IF commercial then $cash, else $mit. A dual license doesn't mean they can choose if they already are what they are, ie for profit.
        ghaff 3y ago
        No, dual licensing simply means something different from what you think it does. Doing your IF statement violates the terms of the MIT license (assuming the same public codebase.). A dual license is not IF/THEN/ELSE, it's pick $mit or $commercial--your call. If I pick $mit, no obligation to pay. You can not use $mit at all. But if you use it whether as part of a dual license model or otherwise, you don't get to rewrite it. Of course, you don't need to be open source at all which is what I usually tell clients who want their software to be "open source" for marketing purposes but get around some of the business model challenges. Here's the fairly canonical MySQL example of a dual license: "Oracle uses a dual licensing model for MySQL to meet the needs of its consumers. Oracle offers MySQL under a proprietary (OEM style) license for licensees who want to create and commercially distribute proprietary derivative works incorporating MySQL without revealing the underlying source code and do not wish to be subject to other restrictions and obligations of the GPL. Additionally, Oracle licenses MySQL under the GPL for licensees who simply want to use the software or who want to incorporate MySQL into a product to be later distributed likewise under the GPL." (Note that Oracle owns the MySQL copyrights. They perhaps couldn't otherwise do this unless subject to some restrictions. You can also just use MySQL without contacting Oracle.) But what you're proposing, the software doesn't have an MIT license. It has MIT license verbiage coupled to other license language that forbids free commercial use. It's not a dual license. It's a new, different, and non-open source license. (Which is fine but your software isn't then open source.) So from the IF/THEN/ELSE perspective your variety of dual licensing is not possible in the sense of a rider on an approved open source software license. (Of course, that assuming you can even define much less enforce "commercial." Creative Commons basically gave up.)
  - teddyh 3y ago
    > Except GNU and OSI are in conflict? No, they aren’t. GNU completely accepts the OSI definition of Open Source. > Then you can have an OS license with a business license or even an FU license (arbitrarily horrible license). “Dual licensing” is an OR operation, not an AND.
    - pickingdinner 3y ago
      > According to the prevailing definitions, prohibiting commercial use is not Open Source. Can you combine that with what you said earlier? I read it as a counter argument to dual licensing. Now you seem to be perfectly OK with it.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        Final comment. I couldn't quite parse the AND/OR comment. But dual licensing is providing a choice of options--pick A or B. It's not attaching a rider to an existing open source license that takes away some of the freedoms of the existing license based on usage.
        teddyh 3y ago
        Correct. “Dual licensing” means “The conditions in this license OR in that license applies”, not “The conditions in this license AND in that license applies”.
        pickingdinner 3y ago
        Some the consumer can freely choose. Others are imposed. eg. Adobe's student discount. You can word it or structure it however you want, but you're perfectly capable of imposing stipulations on specific groups. They're licensing the product to students at a discount. For example: If you plan on billing a client for this software or claiming it as an expense for your business, this software is provided with source for a one time fee of $50 with future upgrades provided at $25, after which will be under the MIT license. Otherwise this software is provided free of charge under the MIT license.
- ghaff 3y ago
  To be a little more precise, the OSI does not own the "open source" term. But most of the industry accepts that, if a license isn't OSI-approved, it isn't an open source license. (And certainly isn't if it clearly violates the open source definition in some manner.)
  - teddyh 3y ago
    > To be a little more precise, the OSI does not own the "open source" term. But most of the industry accepts that, if a license isn't OSI-approved, it isn't an open source license. I agree, but this is only putting it mildly. To make an analogy, does the United States get to decide what the borders of the United States are? No; there is (AFAIK) no international law which has delegated that right to the US Government. But most of the international community accepts that, if the US says that someplace is a part of the US, it is. In the same way, OSI and its Open Source Definition decides what is and is not Open Source.
rgoulter 3y ago
> You're not prohibiting anyone from using it. Nothing is stopping a business from using it, especially if the price is fair. But "Free for private use, pay for commercial use" is a restriction. If you pay for it, you can use it. If you don't pay for it, you're restricted from using it. -- If there were no restrictions for not paying, then you'd just not pay.

teddyh 3y ago

> So does OSI have complete authority over the definition of OS? Yes. > Does their definition restrict dual licenses? No.

pickingdinner 3y ago
> Yes Except GNU and OSI are in conflict? > No Then you can have an OS license with a business license or even an FU license (arbitrarily horrible license).
- ghaff 3y ago
  >Except GNU and OSI are in conflict? Not at all. The various GPL licenses are OSI-approved. Though the GPL may restrict your ability to offer an open core version of the project. I think what you're missing is that if a project is licensed under an open source license, you can dual license it--including only offering some components under the proprietary license, i.e. open core--but the existence of that dual license doesn't take away any of the rights associated with the open source license on the open source portion of the codebase. But dual license doesn't mean that the use of an open source codebase can can be carved up into allowable uses under the open source license and allowable uses under a proprietary license.
  - pickingdinner 3y ago
    Conflict may have been too strong a word. In argument maybe? From what I understood, GNU was/is kind of a big deal, and OSI didn't have a monopoly on OS, or otherwise they would have on GNU also. > if a project is licensed under an open source license, you can dual license it Confirming this is all I am after. I wasn't talking about carving anything up, though that sounds fun.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      >Conflict may have been too strong a word. In argument maybe? The FSF (including GNU) and OSI have their own histories, missions, and philosophies (to some degree although there's no real conflict about what open source/free software are). Yes, there are politics around both organizations but that's mostly inside baseball from the perspective of the average software consumer. There are any number of other non-profits in the open source space that also do their own various things. And, yes, you can dual license. But understand that if one of the licenses is, say, MIT, a commercial entity can still use the software without paying no matter what the other license says. i.e. you can't use the second license to take away rights from the first license.
      - pickingdinner 3y ago
        Then dual licensing is not possible? It's a simple IF statement. IF commercial then $cash, else $mit. A dual license doesn't mean they can choose if they already are what they are, ie for profit.
        ghaff 3y ago
        No, dual licensing simply means something different from what you think it does. Doing your IF statement violates the terms of the MIT license (assuming the same public codebase.). A dual license is not IF/THEN/ELSE, it's pick $mit or $commercial--your call. If I pick $mit, no obligation to pay. You can not use $mit at all. But if you use it whether as part of a dual license model or otherwise, you don't get to rewrite it. Of course, you don't need to be open source at all which is what I usually tell clients who want their software to be "open source" for marketing purposes but get around some of the business model challenges. Here's the fairly canonical MySQL example of a dual license: "Oracle uses a dual licensing model for MySQL to meet the needs of its consumers. Oracle offers MySQL under a proprietary (OEM style) license for licensees who want to create and commercially distribute proprietary derivative works incorporating MySQL without revealing the underlying source code and do not wish to be subject to other restrictions and obligations of the GPL. Additionally, Oracle licenses MySQL under the GPL for licensees who simply want to use the software or who want to incorporate MySQL into a product to be later distributed likewise under the GPL." (Note that Oracle owns the MySQL copyrights. They perhaps couldn't otherwise do this unless subject to some restrictions. You can also just use MySQL without contacting Oracle.) But what you're proposing, the software doesn't have an MIT license. It has MIT license verbiage coupled to other license language that forbids free commercial use. It's not a dual license. It's a new, different, and non-open source license. (Which is fine but your software isn't then open source.) So from the IF/THEN/ELSE perspective your variety of dual licensing is not possible in the sense of a rider on an approved open source software license. (Of course, that assuming you can even define much less enforce "commercial." Creative Commons basically gave up.)
- teddyh 3y ago
  > Except GNU and OSI are in conflict? No, they aren’t. GNU completely accepts the OSI definition of Open Source. > Then you can have an OS license with a business license or even an FU license (arbitrarily horrible license). “Dual licensing” is an OR operation, not an AND.
  - pickingdinner 3y ago
    > According to the prevailing definitions, prohibiting commercial use is not Open Source. Can you combine that with what you said earlier? I read it as a counter argument to dual licensing. Now you seem to be perfectly OK with it.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Final comment. I couldn't quite parse the AND/OR comment. But dual licensing is providing a choice of options--pick A or B. It's not attaching a rider to an existing open source license that takes away some of the freedoms of the existing license based on usage.
      - teddyh 3y ago
        Correct. “Dual licensing” means “The conditions in this license OR in that license applies”, not “The conditions in this license AND in that license applies”.
        pickingdinner 3y ago
        Some the consumer can freely choose. Others are imposed. eg. Adobe's student discount. You can word it or structure it however you want, but you're perfectly capable of imposing stipulations on specific groups. They're licensing the product to students at a discount. For example: If you plan on billing a client for this software or claiming it as an expense for your business, this software is provided with source for a one time fee of $50 with future upgrades provided at $25, after which will be under the MIT license. Otherwise this software is provided free of charge under the MIT license.
ghaff 3y ago
To be a little more precise, the OSI does not own the "open source" term. But most of the industry accepts that, if a license isn't OSI-approved, it isn't an open source license. (And certainly isn't if it clearly violates the open source definition in some manner.)
- teddyh 3y ago
  > To be a little more precise, the OSI does not own the "open source" term. But most of the industry accepts that, if a license isn't OSI-approved, it isn't an open source license. I agree, but this is only putting it mildly. To make an analogy, does the United States get to decide what the borders of the United States are? No; there is (AFAIK) no international law which has delegated that right to the US Government. But most of the international community accepts that, if the US says that someplace is a part of the US, it is. In the same way, OSI and its Open Source Definition decides what is and is not Open Source.

rgoulter 3y ago

> You're not prohibiting anyone from using it. Nothing is stopping a business from using it, especially if the price is fair. But "Free for private use, pay for commercial use" is a restriction. If you pay for it, you can use it. If you don't pay for it, you're restricted from using it. -- If there were no restrictions for not paying, then you'd just not pay.