[HN Gopher] Big Time Public License ___________________________________________________________________ Big Time Public License Author : HexDecOctBin Score : 90 points Date : 2022-01-13 18:32 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (writing.kemitchell.com) (TXT) w3m dump (writing.kemitchell.com) | ralmidani wrote: | I really like the concept behind this and the Polyform licenses, | but wish there could be more modularization to allow, for | example, permissiveness for small businesses but removing | allowances for large "non-profit" orgs. | | Also, a company offering a source available license might, as it | grows, want to raise the employee and revenue thresholds (when | you're making less than a million, a million-dollar company is | more of a threat to your business's survival than when you're | making 50 million). | | Edit: one more thing that would be really cool is allowing a | "default alternative free software license in case this software | is abandoned" clause. | rolleiflex wrote: | I like Mr Mitchell, and I am glad that he is _attempting_ to do | something that so many people shy away from for obvious reasons. | As a developer of a fairly popular open-source tool (Aether), I | have an interest in following the software licensing discussion | in detail, though I am not a lawyer. | | My general impression is, if you excuse my flippance, this | license has holes so big I could drive the fully unfurled James | Webb telescope through it. I don't mean to be dismissive, so | here's an example: | | > `... indefinitely, if the licensor or their legal successor | does not offer a _fair_ commercial license for the software | within 32 days of written request ' | | This is the escape hatch condition inserted for the safety of big | companies that stop qualifying for the small-business section of | the license. Except ... what is fair? More importantly, are you | willing to spend six years in court arguing what 'fair' means? | Because that is how you end up arguing what is fair in court for | six years. | | To be fair (ha), the license tries to firm up the term somewhat | by defining the term later on as: | | > A fair price is a fair market price for a fair commercial | license. If the licensor advertises a price or price structure | for generally available fair commercial licenses, and more than | one customer not affiliated with the licensor has paid that price | in the past year, that is fair. | | Great, but what happens if the software has not been purchased | before? How is _' more than one customer not affiliated with the | licensor'_ going to be resolved? What does 'affiliated' mean and | how broad we are talking about here? Unknown, until there is a | software product that uses this license, gets very popular, and | _then_ we get to see the answers in court, through the poor | developer dragged through hell. | nbadg wrote: | Kyle's a fried of mine, so I may be a bit biased. But I'm very | sympathetic to this kind of license, and fairness is really | hard to define, especially in advance. He's actually written | separately [1] about exactly how difficult it is. | | If you really want to have a concrete definition of fairness, | you're ultimately going to need to hire a lawyer to make a | specific license. That could simply be an add-on clause to this | license that explicitly defines "fair" as a term, and I think | that's exactly the kind of plug-and-play license language that | Kyle has done some work on in other projects. | | That all being said, Kyle is generally very welcoming of | (respectful!) feedback, and I think given how much time he's | spent thinking about how exactly one can define "fairness", he | might enjoy some fresh thoughts about it. | | [1] https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/12/02/Correct- | Intuitive-... | jameshart wrote: | There's some self contradiction right there since by adopting | this license the licensor is explicitly advertising a generally | available commercial license for companies making < $1m priced | at $0.00. | | So if you can point to a few businesses who are benefitting | from those commercial license terms, you might be well within | your rights to consider any license asking you to pay much more | than that 'unreasonable'. | [deleted] | AlexCoventry wrote: | > what is fair? | | The article mentions FRAND. The wikipedia page on it[0] goes | into more detail, and links to discussions of how to determine | a fair price[1]. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non- | discriminat... | | [1] "Formulas for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory | royalty determination" https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8569/ | rolleiflex wrote: | FRAND defines fair in a very specific way in terms of | pricing. For example the definition of F (fair) in FRAND is | exemplified as not requiring purchase of other, unwanted | licenses as a condition to the purchase of the particular | license the customer wants to buy. However that does not | exactly seem to be the use in this license because here it | seems like fair would also carry the meaning of 'not too | expensive', as I interpret the author's explanation: | | > ' If you need a big-company license, reach out for a big- | company license, and either don't get a response, or get a | clearly unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory proposal, | this is your fallback.' | | 'Too expensive' far as I know is not a part of FRAND, the | _fair_ in FRAND means something that is subtly different -- | though I am not knowledgeable enough to conclusively say | FRAND includes this author 's particular meaning of fair. To | my best reading, it seems like it does not. | AlexCoventry wrote: | The second link I gave is explicitly about fair royalties, | though. | rolleiflex wrote: | Ah, my apologies, it wasn't obvious from the second site | how to get to the actual paper. I think this is fair to | say there are ways that attempt to be objective in | defining what is fair licensing cost, but I'd have liked | to see one of these methods explicitly mentioned in the | license so as to not have this question left open as a | landmine. | pessimizer wrote: | I can't imagine that this would hold up in court. You might as | well exclude blondes or people with a brother named "Mike." Just | make it explicitly proprietary and give out free licenses to the | people who meet your criteria. Or equivalently to this, include a | promise in the licensing that you won't pursue license violations | against people who meet X, Y, and Z criteria. | | This license isn't about restrictions on usage, it's about | restrictions on _identity._ It 's deeply weird. Even stranger, | despite the insistence that "fair" is a meaningful term in this | license, the definition "A fair price is a fair market price for | a fair commercial license." tells on itself. The clarification | that it means "more than one customer not affiliated with the | licensor has paid that price in the past year" at first glance | seems unsatisfiable (under the license), because somebody has to | be the first to pay that price, and at that point it wouldn't be | "fair." | | edit: In trying to ape FOSS licensing, it has confused itself. | You don't have to ape FOSS. | AlexCoventry wrote: | Why would it be legally invalid to exclude blondes or people | with a brother named "Mike"? (Obviously it would be immoral and | stupid, but that doesn't make such an exclusion legally | unenforceable.) | lupire wrote: | It violates civil rights laws in the US, likely. | Hjfrf wrote: | In the case of name/appearance, those things can be strongly | correlated with protected categories like race and gender. | | E.g. Consider a similar legal exclusion to only people called | Nguyen or Mohammed or Singh. | henryfjordan wrote: | California has the Unruh Civil Rights Act that applies to all | commercial public accommodations which basically says | "categorical discrimination of any kind is illegal". Saying | "I won't do business with anyone named Mike" or putting up a | "No blondes" sign is categorical discrimination. | | I have no idea how that law would apply to this license | though. | CalChris wrote: | But I don't think people with a brother named Mike are a | _protected class_ according to the Unruh Civil Rights Act. | Those are sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national | origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, | marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary | language, or immigration status. | henryfjordan wrote: | The text of the law reads: | | > All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are | free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, | color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, | medical condition, genetic information, marital status, | sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or | immigration status are entitled to the full and equal | accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or | services in all business establishments of every kind | whatsoever. | | The important part is "All persons ... are free and equal | ... and are entitled to ... equal accommodations". | | When you read it this way (which is how the courts read | the law), the list is just illustrating some classes that | might be discriminated against. It does not limit the | classes merely to those listed. | humanistbot wrote: | Unruh protected classes are: sex, race, color, religion, | ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical | condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual | orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration | status [1] | | Corporate status is not one of these. | | [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient. | xhtml... | henryfjordan wrote: | Those classes are illustrative, not exhaustive | jcranmer wrote: | I don't see a single word in the operative part that | suggests that the list is an inclusive list: | | > (b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state | are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, | color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, | medical condition, genetic information, marital status, | sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or | immigration status are entitled to the full and equal | accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or | services in all business establishments of every kind | whatsoever. | | In interpreting statute, a list of things is generally | assumed to be exclusive unless there are specific words | that indicate it is to be treated as nonexclusive--and | those words are missing here. | henryfjordan wrote: | > The California Supreme Court has repeatedly | "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than | those listed on its face".[6] For example, even prior to | the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list | of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as | protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary | discrimination",[6] such as in the case of Rolon v. | Kulwitzky.[7] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act | kadoban wrote: | Are you a lawyer or have specific knowledge in this area? | | This thing is weird enough to me that I'm not sure I'd have any | idea, myself, and I've spent a good deal of time understanding | and reading about copyright and licenses. | samatman wrote: | Both of those are bad analogies for different reasons. I will | limit myself to US law out of familiarity. | | Excluding blondes is prohibited due to the 'protected | category', which is sweeping, covering most personal | characteristics which are inherent. For a role, and this | broadly includes things like waitressing, these limits can be | imposed, but not in this sort of general contract. | | The problem with _some_ "brother named Mike" contracts is that | they're trying to get around some requirement to be general | while targeting someone in particular. For most contracts you | can in fact say, "anyone can use this except Anish Kapoor, | because screw that guy" and that's going to hold up since | refusing service or commerce outright to an individual is | completely legal. | tptacek wrote: | Is this definition of "protected category" in the license? | Because hair color isn't generally protected in US law. | umanwizard wrote: | > You might as well exclude blondes or people with a brother | named "Mike." | | AFAIU that would be perfectly legal in the USA. | lmkg wrote: | You can't discriminate based on membership of protected | classes, and the doctrine of "disparate impact" means you | can't have an imbalanced impact against a protected class | (even if unintentional!), unless there's a reasonable | business case. | | Excluding blondes has a disparate impact against race. | | Excluding people with a brother named Mike can be argued to | have a disparate impact based on ethnicity or national | origin. Excluding people with a brother named Mike but with | no restrictions on the names of their sisters might be | discriminating based on sex. The condition is also more | likely to exclude people with larger number of siblings, | which could be argued to have a disparate impact based on | religion. | simmons wrote: | I'm a bit uneasy about some things in this license (including | the "fair" bit), but I doubt there's any legal problem with | discriminating licensees based on revenue or head count. | (Disclaimer: IANAL, etc.) Microsoft already does this with | Visual Studio licensing -- the free "community" license | explicitly restricts on both critiera: | | https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/license-terms/mlt031819/ | camgunz wrote: | All kinds of regulations have carveouts for small or family | businesses. It's not legally discriminatory in the slightest. | tyingq wrote: | The author is a lawyer, and appears to have experience in the | space. | | https://work.kemitchell.com/ | nbadg wrote: | I'm a friend of the author, as well as friends with (former) | employees at some of his clients. I can vouch not just that | he's a lawyer, but also that he has experience in the space. | _A lot_ of experience in the space. | benatkin wrote: | With these not-very-open-source licenses I'm glad when they give | them names that are easy to filter out. "Shared" and "Business" | are good terms to filter on, but it seems "Public License" is one | as well. If it says "Public License" I know I'm not going to like | it, whether it's an OSI-approved ones like the GPL, EPL, MPL, | LGPL, AGPL, or this one which isn't OSI-approved and doesn't meet | the OSD. | josephcsible wrote: | Why don't you like the GPL? | cogburnd02 wrote: | Oh Holy God, not another one! | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation | HexDecOctBin wrote: | I shared this one since it was actually drafted by a lawyer, | and they explain the various parts of the license and the | though-process behind it which I found interesting. | masukomi wrote: | to be clear, this isn't "yet another open source license" | | I'm pretty sure this doesn't qualify as an "open source" | license. This is a commercial license that allows free usage | for certain people / companies. | cpach wrote: | Exactly. | | In the early aughts, Microsoft used to call this concept | "shared source" - not open source. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative | dmitrygr wrote: | "If you need a big-company license, reach out for a big-company | license, and either don't get a response, or get a clearly | unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory proposal, this is your | fallback." | | So, what defines "unreasonable"? Maybe to Amazon, you wanting $1 | is unreasonable | dnissley wrote: | I'm curious what projects this license would be useful for? It | kind of seems like it's just a way to grind a particular | political axe? | tptacek wrote: | If "recouping revenue from companies that can easily afford | commercial license" is a political axe, sure. | themodelplumber wrote: | That's a really cool idea in a lot of ways, thanks for sharing | it. | | I do wonder if it could be parameterized for customization, kind | of like CC-etc-etc licensing, but a bit more detailed. IOW, let's | say you cross the barrier from small to big, could the resulting | license effects be more gradual in that transitional zone? Just | curious. | HexDecOctBin wrote: | Kyle E. Mitchell (the author of this license) was also part of | another team of lawyers who created the Polyform Licenses[1] | which AFAIK is supposed to be the modular alternative[2]. | | [1] https://polyformproject.org/ | | [2] https://commercial.polyformproject.org/ | themodelplumber wrote: | That's interesting to see, thanks for the links. | jefftk wrote: | The pairing of 100 people and $1M revenue seems off by a factor | of 10, unless the author intends that the latter limit will | almost always be hit first? For example, in the US, a company | with 100 people would be ~$2M in payroll+taxes alone if it paid | federal minimum wage. | kstrauser wrote: | I always interpret new licenses through the lens of Debian's Free | Software Guidelines.[0] I don't think this would be accepted as | it limits usage. | | Besides that, the definition of a "small business" is terrible. A | company is only eligible to use the software if they meet _all_ | of these conditions: | | - had fewer than 100 total individuals working as employees and | independent contractors at all times during the last tax year | | - earned less than 1,000,000 USD (2019) total revenue in the last | tax year | | - received less than 1,000,000 USD (2019) total debt, equity, and | other investment in the last five tax years, counting investment | in predecessor companies that reorganized into, merged with, or | spun out your company | | 1M USD _in revenue_ is shockingly easy to cross. It also means | that businesses in high cost of living areas will be excluded | before ones in cheaper areas, even if they 're otherwise | identical. | | It's an interesting idea, but I think it's a non-starter. | | [0] https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html | echelon wrote: | I really like this license, but this stuck out to me too. The | thresholds are wide apart, and like you say, easy to cross when | still "poor". | | 100 total individuals is huge (you have HR and lawyers), but | you can do $1M revenue (imagine it sans profit!) with a team of | one or two. | | This doesn't allow for YoY inflation. $1M today won't be the | same tomorrow. The license should expect to issue new versions | frequently to keep up with the economic landscape. | | It'd also be nice if authors could customize their thresholds, | but I suppose that gets into the complexity of Creative | Commons. (Remember that? Where the heck did that disappear to? | - you never hear about it anymore.) | JeffRosenberg wrote: | > This doesn't allow for YoY inflation. $1M today won't be | the same tomorrow. The license should expect to issue new | versions frequently to keep up with the economic landscape. | | That's addressed at the bottom of the definition of a small | business: | | > Adjust these dollar figures for inflation according to the | United States Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price | index for all urban consumers, United States city average, | for all items, not seasonally adjusted, with 1982-1984=100 | reference base. | bombcar wrote: | I take that to mean that today it's $2,683,368.62 - which | is about double and also confusingly worded. | kemitche wrote: | The license seems to refer to $1m in 2019 dollars: | "earned less than 1,000,000 USD (2019)" | kstrauser wrote: | It does actually account for inflation, at least for US | users: | | > Adjust these dollar figures for inflation according to the | United States Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price | index for all urban consumers, United States city average, | for all items, not seasonally adjusted, with 1982-1984=100 | reference base. | | If you're in a country with hyperinflation, sucks to be you. | And that still doesn't account for the massive COL | differences between, say, Mississippi and Hawaii (which is | about 2.2x, according to https://usabynumbers.com/states- | ranked-by-cost-of-living/). | derobert wrote: | The amounts are in US dollars, so any local hyperinflation | won't matter. Your local currency will be worth far fewer | dollars. | | I didn't see if it says how to convert, as there are often | multiple exchange rates, e.g., an official one that can't | actually be used, a underground/black market one, and | purchasing-power parity (PPP). I don't think use outside | the rich, developed nations has really been considered. | jabl wrote: | > I always interpret new licenses through the lens of Debian's | Free Software Guidelines.[0] I don't think this would be | accepted as it limits usage. | | This license doesn't claim it's an open source license. Apples | and oranges. | kstrauser wrote: | Perhaps, but what's the point of discussing non-open source | licenses here? Yet Another Commercial License isn't | interesting, even one that basically works out to be | shareware. | jabl wrote: | > Perhaps, but what's the point of discussing non-open | source licenses here? | | I guess that's up to discussion participants and moderators | to decide, not you (or me) individually. If you're not | interested, nobody is forcing you to participate in the | discussion. | lupire wrote: | This is a software business website, not an open source | website. | tptacek wrote: | Because lots of people here run commercial software | businesses (our original name was "Startup News"). We | discuss this for the same reason we discuss pricing pages | and user metrics. | | Interesting articles about yet another commercial license | are per se on topic for HN. | quadrifoliate wrote: | Given that this is a website run by a startup | accelerator, articles about commercial licenses are | arguably _more_ on topic than ones about open source | licenses. Successful commercial products with GPLed code | are few and far in between. | kstrauser wrote: | It's not that I thought it was off-topic, just that it | seemed unusual to me. What's more common is when an | existing product changes its license, and then HN is all | over discussing the implications. | cmroanirgo wrote: | Although I know of many small businesses that would be very | happy with $1M pa, there does seem to be an imbalance with the | number of employees. You simply can't pay 100 people a salary | and stay under $1M. Maybe 12 people, or $10M would be a better | balance. | kstrauser wrote: | You're right. And even then, that $10M goes a lot further in | Afghanistan than Switzerland. | ralmidani wrote: | Someone could hire an army of programmers in a lower COL | area/country. | HexDecOctBin wrote: | > You simply can't pay 100 people a salary and stay under | $1M. Maybe 12 people, or $10M would be a better balance. | | As someone from a third-world country, I don't know whether | to laugh or cry. I suspect that other than the hyper-inflated | salaries in silicon valley, these metrics will be more than | fair everywhere else. | LukeShu wrote: | $1M is $10k per employee, which is (in the USA) below the | federal poverty line (i.e. not inflated SV numbers) of | $12,880. Just working full time (>=35 hours a week) at the | federal minimum wage ($7.25/hour) puts you over $13k. | messe wrote: | You couldn't pay 100 people minimum wage many places in | Europe on that amount. | 0xffff2 wrote: | Employees cost more than just their salaries. I doubt | there's any software-based business anywhere in the US with | more than ~6-8 employees on $1m revenue. | d3ckard wrote: | Nope, one million is 10k a year per employee. That's low | even in Poland and definitely well, well below Polish IT, | and Europe in general makes a fraction of SV salaries. | | Those numbers are a bad match. | lostmsu wrote: | Poland is not a third world country though. | matkoniecz wrote: | Poland is poor by standards of Western Europe (or USA). | | It is not so poor by global standards. | d3ckard wrote: | Sure, but parent suggested SV bias here, which is not the | case. | shiryel wrote: | 10k USD a year is a reasonable salary in some third-world | countries, on Brazil the minimum wage is about 2600 USD a | year | not2b wrote: | But the business will have other expenses besides salary | (rent on a building, providing developers with machines, | etc), so you would be down to 7k USD per year or lower | for an 100-employee company to break even with only | $1M/year revenue. | micromacrofoot wrote: | ok now try India | Spartan-S63 wrote: | You certainly can if you're taking VC money hand-over-fist | (though that's captured in the $1MM investment clause). I see | that provision in the license as preventing VC-backed | startups from ducking paying for software while they're still | achieving product-market fit. | mwcampbell wrote: | I think we need to be much more willing to consider software | that's released with source available, but under a license that | doesn't comply with the DFSG. (And yes, such software should be | called something other than "open source".) Those guidelines | aren't sacred, and neither is Stallman's definition of free | software. | | Ever since I read _Hackers_ by Steven Levy a few years ago, | I've been much less sympathetic toward Stallman, and the MIT AI | Lab hackers in general. If you've read _Hackers_, recall that | Stallman also strenuously opposed passwords. Well, it's | absolutely clear now that restricting access to computers with | passwords (or something equivalent) is absolutely necessary to | defend against bad actors. So we should be open to the | possibility that, while widespread sharing of source code is | good, some kind of restriction on the usage of that code is | necessary to protect the developers from freeloaders. I'm sure | we haven't arrived at the best way to do this yet, but we won't | get there if we immediately reject all attempts because they | don't meet a definition of freedom that's perhaps too absolute | for the real world. | open-source-ux wrote: | " _I think we need to be much more willing to consider | software that 's released with source available_" | | I agree. The label 'source only' is considered a dirty word | among _some_ open source advocates. But if you are building a | B2B (Business-to-Business) software product, 'source only' | is a perfectly viable option to succesfully make a living | from your product - one that isn't completely closed source | (but one that clearly isn't open source). The source code of | the product cannot be shared, but it can be modified by the | customer to suit their needs. | | The idea of 'source only' is not new at all. Back in the late | 90s when Delphi was popular, many developers created and sold | components to other developers (e.g. UI widgets). These | components came with full source code of the components but | they were not open source. | | Fast forward to today, what are examples of 'source only' | products doing well? Two examples: 'Kirby CMS' and 'Craft | CMS' (Content Management Systems). Both are popular and | profitable. Their source code is even published publicly on | GitHub. The product creators trust customers will pay for the | product (presumably some do not, but enough customers do pay | so it doesn't matter). | | Other developers are happy to contribute to the eco-system of | plugins. So, yes, it's perfectly possible to build a | community of enthusiastic followers for a 'source only' | product that isn't open source. | | WordPress is another example. Although WordPress is open | source, the plugin market is full of 'source only' plugins | for sale that are successful and profitable. | ralmidani wrote: | The problem with absolutism: it ignores how trivial it is to | copy and deploy a lot of modern programs. Condemning licenses | which protect against juggernauts like Amazon leaves no | middle ground between free software and proprietary software. | kemitchell wrote: | Like most definitions in legal terms, the definition of "small | business" in the license is functional and context-specific. It | needn't be a good dictionary definition of "small business" for | use elsewhere. | | Functionally, each of the prongs of Big Time's definition works | as an independent tripwire. Cross one, the license no longer | covers your business and you need to reach out for a deal. This | approach, based on revenue, headcount, and capital, isn't | unique to Big Time. It comes up in laws and regulations, as | well. | | With all that in mind, I don't think it's important for the | figures, read together, to add up to a single, consistent | picture of any one hypothetical business. I don't think they | need to be convincingly proportional. Rather, each needs to | prevent "end runs" around the others. If you're running | accounting losses but paying lots of people, you need to make a | deal. If you're three founders in a garage who haven't even | tried to charge any customers yet, but just raised $3m in | venture capital, you need to do a deal. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | Not to mention in companies that just acquire other companies, | the parent company has a lot of revenue, but the sub-companies | can be chronically cash-strapped. In big companies (and | conglomerates) any given product does not draw from the total | financial resources of the entire organization and its various | revenue streams. A single megacorp product can have a 250K | budget and generate 500K revenue, but they're not gonna get any | more money for their product development just because the | megacorp makes more money outside that product. And that | revenue is probably just gonna get stolen by the megacorp to | use somewhere else, the money doesn't go back into improving | the first product. | | And what's the purpose of this license? Is it to generate | revenue for the developer? If so, you want your terms to invite | more liberal use by larger companies, as they may start using | your project in more and more of their products which will net | you more and more revenue. If it's too expensive for one of | their products, it's too expensive for all of them. | | The best way to get a large company "hooked" on your project is | to provide an initial term of free use, like 6 or 16 months, | and to track use remotely via metrics gathering ("checking for | upgradeable versions on start-up"). Once they've used it for | free long enough, you go and ask (politely) for your money. If | you price right, it'll be cheaper for them to pay you than to | remove your project. | Closi wrote: | I think someone wanting to use this licence may take a view | of "megacorps should pay for my work regardless of their sub- | company internal wooden-dollars accounting, so they shouldn't | get out of using my open source efforts to make their rich | stakeholders richer, although I don't mind helping some small | indie team kickstart their business (and if they end up | growing big, they will pay me anyway!)." | | Also the need for these style of licenses is shown by what | happens when, for instance, AWS decides to just copy an open | source project (that was put on a permissive open source | license with the best of intentions) and then AWS just | directly compete with the original maintainers/authors | company. | post-it wrote: | You could have 100 part-time employees and contractors and be | under $1M total revenue. Not common, but some kind of tutoring | agency maybe. | | It doesn't hurt to cover all bases. The author thought of three | qualities that would define a large business and AND'ed their | negations to define a small business. It doesn't really matter | if #2 almost always implies #1. | jgeada wrote: | How's that my problem? I don't owe you a profit! More, we | don't owe you _anything_ , the obligation at best runs the | other direction. | | Users of open software are making use of work of others | frequently without payment or any similar contribution to | that work. At a certain scale, and that point can be defined | in arbitrarily, your ability to free ride on the work of | others ends. I don't how that is a controversial point. | post-it wrote: | Did you reply to the wrong comment? I don't understand your | response. | jalonso510 wrote: | seems like the springing requirement to negotiate a paid license | after $1m in revenue is just destined to be forgotten. it will | come up two rounds later in diligence and be a minor pain to deal | with. I'd probably avoid using something licensed under this just | to avoid the headache later. or would prefer to pay for a | commercial license upfront even. | lupire wrote: | > I will probably never be happy with this paragraph [describing | the purpose] for more than five minutes at a time. | | So why should anyone use it, if the author doesn't like it? | computronus wrote: | One suggestion I have is to update the "How to Request" section, | which lays out a procedure for asking for a commercial license. | It'd be simpler if the license terms require the _licensor_ to | provide contact information for commercial licenses in a defined | location. That would help "guarantee[] ... paid licenses for big | business are available on fair terms"; there's some consideration | in this license for the rights of the big business here. | | If the licensor can't be bothered to provide contact information, | then they aren't upholding their side of the deal, considering | the purpose of the license. The licensor could always use a | different license, then. | | ETA: It also makes the process for getting the license cut and | dry. It's easy to determine if enough work was done by the big | business to contact the licensor: did they use the contact | information required to be present or not? | stickfigure wrote: | This is an interesting concept, but I'm not sure I would use | software like this in my small business unless the software owner | made some sort of price commitment up front. Otherwise, several | years down the road, I'm hit with the bill - and the owner could | charge me _anything_ they want. I 'm already dependent on the | software. | gspr wrote: | Just another non-free crayon license. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-13 23:00 UTC)