You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> on 2017/10/17 20:27:29 UTC
license zero
Hi Apache legal folk!
Recently some concern has grown about the long term sustainability of
software projects. Saw an interesting concept [0] to deal with this
recently and I wanted to see how folks at Apache feel about it.
[0] https://licensezero.com/
[[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the private
license money's paid to a foundation (not a privately held company) but
otherwise interesting thought experiment.]]
Re: license zero
Posted by Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com>.
Understanding confirmed all around.
Thanks for taking time, Danese.
--
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: license zero
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
Hi Kyle,
I get it that you've not made OSD compliance claims for L0. My point was
that it wouldn't fly at Apache because we're an Open Source Foundation.
Sounds like you already have realistic expectations in this regard.
Happy to talk more about this, but not this week. Prepping for ATO.
Best Wishes,
D
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:24 PM Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com> wrote:
> Danese,
>
> Thanks for your message.
>
> License Zero's noncommercial license clearly falls outside
> the Open Source Definition. I've been careful to say as
> much in public writing, from the get-go. As under
> "Departure" here:
>
> https://licensezero.com/manifesto
>
> As folks have fed back, alas, I've found myself caring a
> great deal more than my audience. Some of those enthused
> are "new kids", I suppose. But some of those new kids know
> about OSD, DFSG, and "What is free software?", too.
>
> I don't mean to bear down on a sore subject. Only to let on
> that L0 comes from perhaps a more informed place than seems
> at first blush. Especially when someone else is kind enough
> to broach, perhaps not quite as I would.
>
> Exhibit 1: License Zero's reciprocal license is currently on
> OSI's license-review. It's been revised a few times in
> response to feedback, including some from the list.
>
> By the by, the possibility of OSD conformance without OSI
> approval has come up repeatedly. L0-R attempts to implement
> copyleft in a stronger way than seen before, in a different
> way than seen before. That's prompting interesting
> conversations on scope of permissible conditions, whether
> "field of use" reads on specific software methodologies as
> opposed to end uses, and how AGPL fits in all of that.
>
> "Apache License" is fairly well synonymous with
> business-friendly, enterprise-style, highly permissive
> license terms. I use it myself, and recommend it often,
> when goals coincide.
>
> I'd love to engage you and others here in Apache Land on L0.
> But as I mentioned, I'd be very, very surprised to see
> L0-licensed software in or out of the Foundation. That
> should be clear before anyone's too generous with their
> time.
>
> --
> Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
>
Re: license zero
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
Thank you! And yes! I do not see why a non for profit couldn't work with
something like this.
Personally feel a privately held for profit company, like say Open
Collective, that pays developers directly is a super bad incentive
structure. And its gaining popularity and, yep, that concerns me. This
problem is most definately real (openssl being the dramatic example) and
the solutions flat out suck.
Apache the org *should* be interested in doing better for open source
maintainers even if some members aren't.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
wrote:
> Shane Curcuru wrote on Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 19:49:55 -0400:
> > This is a useful place for some discussion when a topic relates to the
> > work Apache projects are doing, since we do make it a public list. But
> > other than general statements of "it's a really interesting idea" and
> > "it's not for the ASF" I don't know what else will come out here.
>
> Brian LeRoux wrote on Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 13:27:29 -0700:
> > Hi Apache legal folk!
> >
> > Recently some concern has grown about the long term sustainability of
> > software projects. Saw an interesting concept [0] to deal with this
> > recently and I wanted to see how folks at Apache feel about it.
> >
> > [0] https://licensezero.com/
> >
> > [[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the private
> > license money's paid to a foundation (not a privately held company) but
> > otherwise interesting thought experiment.]]
>
> Not directly related to L0, but the general question of "how to ensure
> open source devs get compensated for their work" is directly relevant to
> the health of ASF projects.
>
> For example, at Subversion we're facing a shortage of salaried developer-
> hours and are wondering about possible ways to address that. (We haven't
> reached any firm conclusions.)
>
> I'm aware that ASF's traditional position is that it's none of its
> business who pays whom, and I'm not suggesting to change that. I'm just
> saying that it's in ASF's interests that its projects' developers find ways
> to get themselves funded... which is something that ASF doesn't currently
> do.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: license zero
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
This is a useful place for some discussion when a topic relates to the
work Apache projects are doing, since we do make it a public list. But
other than general statements of "it's a really interesting idea" and
"it's not for the ASF" I don't know what else will come out here.
Kyle Mitchell wrote on 10/17/17 7:39 PM:
> On 2017-10-17 18:10, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com> wrote:
>>> I'd love to engage you and others here in Apache Land on
>>> L0. But as I mentioned, I'd be very, very surprised to
>>> see L0-licensed software in or out of the Foundation.
>>> That should be clear before anyone's too generous with
>>> their time.
>>>
>>
>> When somebody wants to *use* some L0 software within an Apache project,
>> then it would get evaluated and categorized. We tend to avoid doing work
>> before somebody asks for it. I haven't read in detail, but if there is
>> reciprocity then it would likely be Cat X (forbidden).
>
> These are early days, and L0's public licenses are changing
> with feedback. All the same, I'd be very surprised to see
> L0 code anywhere but Cat X.
That would be my vote as well.
Separately, I'll be curious what inroads you make in broader
community-governed projects rather than sole maintainer-run projects.
> The current draft of the noncommercial license has a
> built-in, automatic waiver that reverts the public terms to
> BSD-2-Clause. Apache may someday see a request to use
> formerly L0 software transitioned under that mechanism. But
> that's both hypothetical and far off. I completely agree it
> makes no sense for AF to entertain now.
For the hypothetical, I don't see where an entity can be absolutely,
positively sure that a body of software has irrevocably fallen back to
the BSD-like terms without the chance it might snap back to noncommercial.
Am I missing something, or is there no way to definitively show that in
the past, the licensor domain was unavailable for 90 days? It seems
like every time someone wants to use one of these software products in
the future, they'll need to do historical due diligence to prove to
themselves that the noncommercial restrictions are no longer required.
--
- Shane
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: license zero
Posted by Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com>.
On 2017-10-17 18:10, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com> wrote:
> > I'd love to engage you and others here in Apache Land on
> > L0. But as I mentioned, I'd be very, very surprised to
> > see L0-licensed software in or out of the Foundation.
> > That should be clear before anyone's too generous with
> > their time.
> >
>
> When somebody wants to *use* some L0 software within an Apache project,
> then it would get evaluated and categorized. We tend to avoid doing work
> before somebody asks for it. I haven't read in detail, but if there is
> reciprocity then it would likely be Cat X (forbidden).
These are early days, and L0's public licenses are changing
with feedback. All the same, I'd be very surprised to see
L0 code anywhere but Cat X.
The current draft of the noncommercial license has a
built-in, automatic waiver that reverts the public terms to
BSD-2-Clause. Apache may someday see a request to use
formerly L0 software transitioned under that mechanism. But
that's both hypothetical and far off. I completely agree it
makes no sense for AF to entertain now.
--
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: license zero
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Greg Stein wrote on Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:30 -0500:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com> wrote:
> >...
>
> > I'd love to engage you and others here in Apache Land on L0.
> > But as I mentioned, I'd be very, very surprised to see
> > L0-licensed software in or out of the Foundation. That
> > should be clear before anyone's too generous with their
> > time.
> >
>
> When somebody wants to *use* some L0 software within an Apache project,
> then it would get evaluated and categorized. We tend to avoid doing work
> before somebody asks for it. I haven't read in detail, but if there is
> reciprocity then it would likely be Cat X (forbidden).
licensezero is two distinct licenses, this is the non-reciprocal one:
https://licensezero.com/licenses/noncommercial
Commercial use "must be limited to a period of 30 consecutive calendar
days" so long as licensezero.com itself is alive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: license zero
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com> wrote:
>...
> I'd love to engage you and others here in Apache Land on L0.
> But as I mentioned, I'd be very, very surprised to see
> L0-licensed software in or out of the Foundation. That
> should be clear before anyone's too generous with their
> time.
>
When somebody wants to *use* some L0 software within an Apache project,
then it would get evaluated and categorized. We tend to avoid doing work
before somebody asks for it. I haven't read in detail, but if there is
reciprocity then it would likely be Cat X (forbidden).
As for "out" ... yeah, won't happen as the Foundation mandates ALv2 for all
releases.
Cheers,
-g
Re: license zero
Posted by Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com>.
Danese,
Thanks for your message.
License Zero's noncommercial license clearly falls outside
the Open Source Definition. I've been careful to say as
much in public writing, from the get-go. As under
"Departure" here:
https://licensezero.com/manifesto
As folks have fed back, alas, I've found myself caring a
great deal more than my audience. Some of those enthused
are "new kids", I suppose. But some of those new kids know
about OSD, DFSG, and "What is free software?", too.
I don't mean to bear down on a sore subject. Only to let on
that L0 comes from perhaps a more informed place than seems
at first blush. Especially when someone else is kind enough
to broach, perhaps not quite as I would.
Exhibit 1: License Zero's reciprocal license is currently on
OSI's license-review. It's been revised a few times in
response to feedback, including some from the list.
By the by, the possibility of OSD conformance without OSI
approval has come up repeatedly. L0-R attempts to implement
copyleft in a stronger way than seen before, in a different
way than seen before. That's prompting interesting
conversations on scope of permissible conditions, whether
"field of use" reads on specific software methodologies as
opposed to end uses, and how AGPL fits in all of that.
"Apache License" is fairly well synonymous with
business-friendly, enterprise-style, highly permissive
license terms. I use it myself, and recommend it often,
when goals coincide.
I'd love to engage you and others here in Apache Land on L0.
But as I mentioned, I'd be very, very surprised to see
L0-licensed software in or out of the Foundation. That
should be clear before anyone's too generous with their
time.
--
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: license zero
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Indeed! Besides, contributions into the open-source don't imply owning the
whole thing. OSI opinion is _just_ an opinion. Others might consider it a
viable guidance or ignore it.
Cos
> Yes, really. I could clone the ALv2 and call it "Greg's License" and it
> would be an Open Source license. Easy peasy. Licenses that are created
> could also meet the OSD or DFSG or whatever and be an Open Source license.
>
> This has nothing to do with any purported disagreements with OSI and its
> people (not sure why you think I have issues with them?).
>
> I take issue with an organization claiming sole right to call something an
> "Open Source license". Or more precisely to say that a license is "not Open
> Source because it hasn't been OSI-approved" ... That's nonsense. ... I'm
> fine with the term "OSI-Approved Open Source license" because that
> precisely describes what is going on.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Really Greg? OSI has a long history of open debate of licenses to help
> > developers (who aren't lawyers) figure out what is or isn't OSD Compliant.
> > It's a free service that continues to be the best way to normalize what is
> > or isn't Open Source.
> >
> > I get it that you've had some disagreements with some OSI Directors, but
> > the whole "they don't own the trademark" tack isn't helpful, IMHO.
> >
> > D
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:21 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Euh... any license can be Open Source. OSI doesn't "own" that term.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> License Zero isn't Open Source (as in it hasn't been OSI Approved).
> >>> Field of Use restrictions violate the OSD and indicate a basic
> >>> misunderstanding of Open Source (one that is currently in vogue with the
> >>> new kids).
> >>>
> >>> Danese
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Apache legal folk!
> >>>>
> >>>> Recently some concern has grown about the long term sustainability of
> >>>> software projects. Saw an interesting concept [0] to deal with this
> >>>> recently and I wanted to see how folks at Apache feel about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> [0] https://licensezero.com/
> >>>>
> >>>> [[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the private
> >>>> license money's paid to a foundation (not a privately held company) but
> >>>> otherwise interesting thought experiment.]]
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
Re: license zero
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Yes, really. I could clone the ALv2 and call it "Greg's License" and it
would be an Open Source license. Easy peasy. Licenses that are created
could also meet the OSD or DFSG or whatever and be an Open Source license.
This has nothing to do with any purported disagreements with OSI and its
people (not sure why you think I have issues with them?).
I take issue with an organization claiming sole right to call something an
"Open Source license". Or more precisely to say that a license is "not Open
Source because it hasn't been OSI-approved" ... That's nonsense. ... I'm
fine with the term "OSI-Approved Open Source license" because that
precisely describes what is going on.
Cheers,
-g
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Really Greg? OSI has a long history of open debate of licenses to help
> developers (who aren't lawyers) figure out what is or isn't OSD Compliant.
> It's a free service that continues to be the best way to normalize what is
> or isn't Open Source.
>
> I get it that you've had some disagreements with some OSI Directors, but
> the whole "they don't own the trademark" tack isn't helpful, IMHO.
>
> D
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:21 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Euh... any license can be Open Source. OSI doesn't "own" that term.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> License Zero isn't Open Source (as in it hasn't been OSI Approved).
>>> Field of Use restrictions violate the OSD and indicate a basic
>>> misunderstanding of Open Source (one that is currently in vogue with the
>>> new kids).
>>>
>>> Danese
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Apache legal folk!
>>>>
>>>> Recently some concern has grown about the long term sustainability of
>>>> software projects. Saw an interesting concept [0] to deal with this
>>>> recently and I wanted to see how folks at Apache feel about it.
>>>>
>>>> [0] https://licensezero.com/
>>>>
>>>> [[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the private
>>>> license money's paid to a foundation (not a privately held company) but
>>>> otherwise interesting thought experiment.]]
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: license zero
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
Really Greg? OSI has a long history of open debate of licenses to help
developers (who aren't lawyers) figure out what is or isn't OSD Compliant.
It's a free service that continues to be the best way to normalize what is
or isn't Open Source.
I get it that you've had some disagreements with some OSI Directors, but
the whole "they don't own the trademark" tack isn't helpful, IMHO.
D
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:21 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Euh... any license can be Open Source. OSI doesn't "own" that term.
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> License Zero isn't Open Source (as in it hasn't been OSI Approved). Field
>> of Use restrictions violate the OSD and indicate a basic misunderstanding
>> of Open Source (one that is currently in vogue with the new kids).
>>
>> Danese
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Apache legal folk!
>>>
>>> Recently some concern has grown about the long term sustainability of
>>> software projects. Saw an interesting concept [0] to deal with this
>>> recently and I wanted to see how folks at Apache feel about it.
>>>
>>> [0] https://licensezero.com/
>>>
>>> [[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the private
>>> license money's paid to a foundation (not a privately held company) but
>>> otherwise interesting thought experiment.]]
>>>
>>
>
Re: license zero
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Euh... any license can be Open Source. OSI doesn't "own" that term.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> License Zero isn't Open Source (as in it hasn't been OSI Approved). Field
> of Use restrictions violate the OSD and indicate a basic misunderstanding
> of Open Source (one that is currently in vogue with the new kids).
>
> Danese
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi Apache legal folk!
>>
>> Recently some concern has grown about the long term sustainability of
>> software projects. Saw an interesting concept [0] to deal with this
>> recently and I wanted to see how folks at Apache feel about it.
>>
>> [0] https://licensezero.com/
>>
>> [[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the private
>> license money's paid to a foundation (not a privately held company) but
>> otherwise interesting thought experiment.]]
>>
>
Re: license zero
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
Yeah, I get that, my ask was opinions not a so much a refresher on the
status quo. Sorry if that wasn’t clear!
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:53 PM Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> License Zero isn't Open Source (as in it hasn't been OSI Approved). Field
> of Use restrictions violate the OSD and indicate a basic misunderstanding
> of Open Source (one that is currently in vogue with the new kids).
>
> Danese
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi Apache legal folk!
>>
>> Recently some concern has grown about the long term sustainability of
>> software projects. Saw an interesting concept [0] to deal with this
>> recently and I wanted to see how folks at Apache feel about it.
>>
>> [0] https://licensezero.com/
>>
>> [[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the private
>> license money's paid to a foundation (not a privately held company) but
>> otherwise interesting thought experiment.]]
>>
>
Re: license zero
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
License Zero isn't Open Source (as in it hasn't been OSI Approved). Field
of Use restrictions violate the OSD and indicate a basic misunderstanding
of Open Source (one that is currently in vogue with the new kids).
Danese
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:27 PM Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> Hi Apache legal folk!
>
> Recently some concern has grown about the long term sustainability of
> software projects. Saw an interesting concept [0] to deal with this
> recently and I wanted to see how folks at Apache feel about it.
>
> [0] https://licensezero.com/
>
> [[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the private
> license money's paid to a foundation (not a privately held company) but
> otherwise interesting thought experiment.]]
>
Re: license zero
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
Rad, I love it Kyle, and ya I don't think Apache is capable of this sort of
dramatic change but I do respect the opinions here and wanted to gauge the
reaction(s).
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com> wrote:
> License Zero is my little experiment, and I'll be more than happy to
> answer questions about it. From Apache folks and other folks.
>
> That being said, knowing what I know about Apache, I'd be _very_
> surprised to see the foundation go that way for any of its own code,
> or allow use of either noncommercial or reciprocal L0 code in
> foundation projects.
>
> --
> Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: license zero
Posted by Kyle Mitchell <ky...@kemitchell.com>.
License Zero is my little experiment, and I'll be more than happy to
answer questions about it. From Apache folks and other folks.
That being said, knowing what I know about Apache, I'd be _very_
surprised to see the foundation go that way for any of its own code,
or allow use of either noncommercial or reciprocal L0 code in
foundation projects.
--
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: license zero
Posted by Ross Gardler <ro...@gardler.org>.
There are other models that people interested in this topic might want to look at. These models use trademark to enforce this kind of "payment requirement". Depending on the exact nature of the problem you are trying to address there may be no need to get lawyers involved and create a new license.
For example, Moodle (an open source learning management system used in between 30% and 80% of the educational institutions in most countries of the world) is mostly developed by Moodle Pty (an Australian company). Moodle Pty. own the Moodle trademark and license it to partners who then sell services to those educational institutions. Larger institutions with an IT department self-host from the open source bits. Both partners and self-hosters will often contribute upstream in the traditional sense. All partners contribute cash to Moodle Pty and as such get a say in feature prioritization.
One of the interesting things about this model is that it is compatible with all open source licenses (and closed source too if you don't care about code contributions from non-partners). For example, I can take Apache Foo, couple it to Project Bar and give it a fancy new trademarked name that I then license to partners while community participants still get my open source bits.
In many ways this model brings the benefits license zero seems to be trying to create whilst not involving too many new legal arguments. Of course, it also has its drawbacks, no model is perfect.
Speaking personally... I see no problem with the sustainability of Apache projects. If the software does something useful and people want to use it then it continues to be developed. Sure, that's not a perfect model either, no model is perfect 😊
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacretaz@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:13 PM
To: legal-discuss <le...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: license zero
Hi Brian,
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
...
> [0] https://licensezero.com/
Interesting concept, makes me think of https://www.patreon.com/ but forces people to pay, for commercial use, IIUC.
> ...[[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the
> private license money's paid to a foundation...
I don't think Apache would ever get involved in such things, due to our strong "independence from businesses" principles. Having a foundation act as a trusted third party sounds great but I don't think the ASF can be that.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: license zero
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Brian,
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
...
> [0] https://licensezero.com/
Interesting concept, makes me think of https://www.patreon.com/ but
forces people to pay, for commercial use, IIUC.
> ...[[Personally I think it could setup the right incentives if the private
> license money's paid to a foundation...
I don't think Apache would ever get involved in such things, due to
our strong "independence from businesses" principles. Having a
foundation act as a trusted third party sounds great but I don't think
the ASF can be that.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org