Subject: Re: licensing adn open source business models
From: David <dirvine@david-irvine.com>
Date: 19 Jan 2002 15:25:53 +0000
19 Jan 2002 15:25:53 +0000
This is an interesting concept and one which I would like to investigate
further. Some things this license may or may not include in my opinion,
or more appropriately my current muddled thinking would be

1: Allowance for the license to be free in some situations (clearly
defined by licensor).
2: Protection against things like major companies simply adding the
software to their offering, not for direct profit, but for enhancement
of their offering (indirect benefits at the cost of the original
developer). This would be in the free to open source companies and
redhat (example name only, I am sure redhat would not do this) or
similar simly bundling with their cd's and saying thanks (or maybe not
even that much), thus enhancing their disc and killing off your market
(or would it - come to think of it if the code is released at all teh
license stays - so this may be ok).
3: A mechanism to allow code contributions back to the system with
assignation of copyright or similar, i.e this license permits
contributions to be recieved and used under the control of the licensor,
contributers shuld receive credit but not maintain copyright. This
should allow commercial exploitation by the licensor. This is an
important area and care has to be taken the licensor is simply not
getting everything and giving nothing. 
4: A mechanism to ensure that if the legal entity owning the software
were to not exist any more (give up project, company fails) this would
instantly GPL (or similar (bsd, lgpl) the code. Consideration for sale
of company and assets would have to be taken into account.
5: Allowance for all licensees of the software having to be registered
with the licensor (ala bugtraq type thing) if required. Removal of any
licensing code or simialr could negate the license. (let people steal it
but let them steak ours type approach).
6: A trial componant on the license to say allow a 30 day trial of the
code upon registration.

I may be way off track here and receive some nasty mail at some
suggestion, but I am only trying too look at everything and all
suggestions.

Like the site and the ideas as I have said, I would be very interested
in an early copy of the license were it to become avaliable. I  do not
know if you would intend on getting Open Source approval and would be
interested to know if you thaought you may be able to (I hear it takes a
very long time for that now)
. 

On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 21:56, Michael Bauer wrote:
> 
> I've been working on something I call "Open Corporations" 
> (http://www.michaelbauer.com/open-corporations.html").  Basically, it's a 
> summary of thought that advocates establishing a formal legal entity 
> around an open source project.  This entity manages the intellectual 
> property on behalf of the open source developers in such a way that 
> supports both the open source developers and more scalable business 
> models.  An Open Corporation uses "Common Source"  licenses for the 
> software that support it's "free" use in most contexts,  but simply 
> requires fair compensation for use when distributing 
> revenue-generating derivative works.  
> 
> The essay draws on a number of other ideas such as those proposed in the 
> Democratic Software license.  It tries to simplify things a bit by leaving 
> the definition and allocation of "equity" up to a corporation rather than 
> defined in a license.  It also provides a currently informal analysis of 
> traditional open source business models.  Food for thought.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Bauer        me@michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com



["application/pgp-signature" not shown]