Re: opentaps licensing model [Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com>]

Since this turned into a discussion about opentaps, I'd like to explain 
the opentaps licensing and business model a little better, for the 
benefit of everybody in the OFBIZ community. 

The opentaps licensing model is a way we thought of to increase the 
total body of openly available software, hopefully to the benefit of 
everybody.  Our goal is not to exclude anybody, whether you are a user, 
a service provider, or a vertical market ISV, from using our software.  
Rather, it is to create a fair  mechanism for encouraging contributions 
back to the open source community and supporting open source 
development.  (It is actually a more sophisticated form of some early 
cost-sharing models we tried two years ago but simply didn't work.)

If you are thinking of creating a commercial product which falls out of 
the scope of our open source license, we have a couple of options:

(a) We offer a commercial license which is a small fraction of the cost 
for you to create these applications yourself or hiring a consultant to 
do it for you.  With this license, you do not have any obligations to 
publish your proprietary code.  All our commercial licensing revenues, 
in turn, help support ongoing development and support for open source 
software, to the benefit of everybody.

(b) Alternatively, you could contribute features back to us in exchange 
for commercial licenses, and we offer very generous terms of exchange 
which will give you a good return on your investment in those features 
and save you from "reinventing the wheel" first.  In effect, you'll be 
joining us in the development of opentaps.

Of course, please do not mistake any of this for trying to dissuade 
anybody from contributing back to OFBIZ.  I've spent three plus years 
trying to get more contributions to OFBIZ, and, obviously, the better 
OFBIZ is, the better off we are.  However, if you want to use opentaps 
but don't want to create an open source product based on it yourself, I 
do not want you to feel that we are trying to exclude you either.  

Si Chen

Scott A wrote:
> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for a
> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes
> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand I can
> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a HPL. Is
> this a correct assumption?
>
>
>
>
> Christian Geisert wrote:
>   
>> Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
>>     
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various
>>> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from
>>> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
>>> licensing issues.)
>>>       
>> [..]
>>
>>     
>>> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
>>> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
>>> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts
>>> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses
>>> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz
>>> with a module which not only provides additional financial services but
>>> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
>>>       
>> I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
>> wrong, see
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
>> for details.
>> Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is based
>> on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required to
>> publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the license
>> and give an attribution notice.
>> Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
>>
>> -- 
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

Re: opentaps licensing model [Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Jonathon -- Improov <jo...@improov.com>]

Chris,

Nice read, those articles from Fabrizio Capobianco.

I'm more concerned about the diff between ASL and HPL, than GPL and HPL.

Frankly, I'm totally confused, and I often don't know what to do about balancing community benefit 
and commercial bottom lines. I do find myself simply working for the highest bidder. More often 
than not, I've benefited commercial players more than community players, which is sad.

Ultimately, I just wanna have some fun doing what I'm good at, and that's not law (or monopoly 
either).

OT here, please don't respond on ML, just musings. I wonder if GPL will ever make HPL unnecessary. 
And I wonder if the world is crumbling (what with new disruptive weather/climate) because I'm not 
helping to do something about it.

Jonathon

Chris Howe wrote:
> An interesting blog entry as to the beginnings of the HPL and what the
> main distinction is between it and the GPL. 
> 
> http://www.funambol.com/blog/capo/2006/08/honest-public-license.html
> 
> 
> 
> --- Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com> wrote:
> 
>> Since this turned into a discussion about opentaps, I'd like to
>> explain 
>> the opentaps licensing and business model a little better, for the 
>> benefit of everybody in the OFBIZ community. 
>>
>> The opentaps licensing model is a way we thought of to increase the 
>> total body of openly available software, hopefully to the benefit of 
>> everybody.  Our goal is not to exclude anybody, whether you are a
>> user, 
>> a service provider, or a vertical market ISV, from using our
>> software.  
>> Rather, it is to create a fair  mechanism for encouraging
>> contributions 
>> back to the open source community and supporting open source 
>> development.  (It is actually a more sophisticated form of some early
>>
>> cost-sharing models we tried two years ago but simply didn't work.)
>>
>> If you are thinking of creating a commercial product which falls out
>> of 
>> the scope of our open source license, we have a couple of options:
>>
>> (a) We offer a commercial license which is a small fraction of the
>> cost 
>> for you to create these applications yourself or hiring a consultant
>> to 
>> do it for you.  With this license, you do not have any obligations to
>>
>> publish your proprietary code.  All our commercial licensing
>> revenues, 
>> in turn, help support ongoing development and support for open source
>>
>> software, to the benefit of everybody.
>>
>> (b) Alternatively, you could contribute features back to us in
>> exchange 
>> for commercial licenses, and we offer very generous terms of exchange
>>
>> which will give you a good return on your investment in those
>> features 
>> and save you from "reinventing the wheel" first.  In effect, you'll
>> be 
>> joining us in the development of opentaps.
>>
>> Of course, please do not mistake any of this for trying to dissuade 
>> anybody from contributing back to OFBIZ.  I've spent three plus years
>>
>> trying to get more contributions to OFBIZ, and, obviously, the better
>>
>> OFBIZ is, the better off we are.  However, if you want to use
>> opentaps 
>> but don't want to create an open source product based on it yourself,
>> I 
>> do not want you to feel that we are trying to exclude you either.  
>>
>> Si Chen
>>
>> Scott A wrote:
>>> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go
>> for a
>>> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which
>> includes
>>> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I
>> understand I can
>>> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a
>> HPL. Is
>>> this a correct assumption?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Christian Geisert wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
>>>>     
>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>
>>>>> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the
>> various
>>>>> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I
>> understand from
>>>>> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on
>> these
>>>>> licensing issues.)
>>>>>       
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
>>>>> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on
>> interfaces
>>>>> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces
>> parts
>>>>> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which
>> uses
>>>>> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing
>> ofbiz
>>>>> with a module which not only provides additional financial
>> services but
>>>>> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
>>>>>       
>>>> I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
>>>> wrong, see
>>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
>>>> for details.
>>>> Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is
>> based
>>>> on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required
>> to
>>>> publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the
>> license
>>>> and give an attribution notice.
>>>> Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>   
> 
> 

Re: opentaps licensing model [Questions about the future of ofbiz]

[Chris Howe <cj...@yahoo.com>]

An interesting blog entry as to the beginnings of the HPL and what the
main distinction is between it and the GPL. 

http://www.funambol.com/blog/capo/2006/08/honest-public-license.html



--- Si Chen <si...@opensourcestrategies.com> wrote:

> Since this turned into a discussion about opentaps, I'd like to
> explain 
> the opentaps licensing and business model a little better, for the 
> benefit of everybody in the OFBIZ community. 
> 
> The opentaps licensing model is a way we thought of to increase the 
> total body of openly available software, hopefully to the benefit of 
> everybody.  Our goal is not to exclude anybody, whether you are a
> user, 
> a service provider, or a vertical market ISV, from using our
> software.  
> Rather, it is to create a fair  mechanism for encouraging
> contributions 
> back to the open source community and supporting open source 
> development.  (It is actually a more sophisticated form of some early
> 
> cost-sharing models we tried two years ago but simply didn't work.)
> 
> If you are thinking of creating a commercial product which falls out
> of 
> the scope of our open source license, we have a couple of options:
> 
> (a) We offer a commercial license which is a small fraction of the
> cost 
> for you to create these applications yourself or hiring a consultant
> to 
> do it for you.  With this license, you do not have any obligations to
> 
> publish your proprietary code.  All our commercial licensing
> revenues, 
> in turn, help support ongoing development and support for open source
> 
> software, to the benefit of everybody.
> 
> (b) Alternatively, you could contribute features back to us in
> exchange 
> for commercial licenses, and we offer very generous terms of exchange
> 
> which will give you a good return on your investment in those
> features 
> and save you from "reinventing the wheel" first.  In effect, you'll
> be 
> joining us in the development of opentaps.
> 
> Of course, please do not mistake any of this for trying to dissuade 
> anybody from contributing back to OFBIZ.  I've spent three plus years
> 
> trying to get more contributions to OFBIZ, and, obviously, the better
> 
> OFBIZ is, the better off we are.  However, if you want to use
> opentaps 
> but don't want to create an open source product based on it yourself,
> I 
> do not want you to feel that we are trying to exclude you either.  
> 
> Si Chen
> 
> Scott A wrote:
> > Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go
> for a
> > franchise type business where I sell the entire package which
> includes
> > website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I
> understand I can
> > do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a
> HPL. Is
> > this a correct assumption?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Christian Geisert wrote:
> >   
> >> Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
> >>     
> >>> Hello.
> >>>
> >>> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the
> various
> >>> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I
> understand from
> >>> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on
> these
> >>> licensing issues.)
> >>>       
> >> [..]
> >>
> >>     
> >>> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
> >>> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on
> interfaces
> >>> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces
> parts
> >>> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which
> uses
> >>> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing
> ofbiz
> >>> with a module which not only provides additional financial
> services but
> >>> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
> >>>       
> >> I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
> >> wrong, see
> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
> >> for details.
> >> Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is
> based
> >> on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required
> to
> >> publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the
> license
> >> and give an attribution notice.
> >> Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Christian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >   
>