Reminds me of Sentry's model: https://blog.sentry.io/2019/11/06/relicensing-sentry
Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
11–20 of 74 posts
Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
#12This license sort of sounds like a patent. The creators get to make some money for a little while and then it gives everyone access to the software.
Yes, I think that's the objective for the licence. Reading slightly more into the product (Halo 2), they would benefit from more adoption by others as it could facilitate cross-chain interoperation.
The license model gives everyone equal access to the code, and equal rights to improve Halo commercially (make money?) with the promise that they subsequently open-source their improvements after 12 months.
This license model fits this product quite well.
Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
#13This (under the same name and version 1.0) has already been presented to FSF and OSI in the 2000s and 2010 on their mailing lists and other places, so I guess it didn't get approval. Since it thus isn't an open-source license, why present it as such in article title - starting out dishonest is probably not a good idea. If I'm wrong and it is approved by OSI, that info should probably be more prominent in the blog pos…
There's a number of other reasons the OSI doesn't approve licenses, such as avoiding license proliferation https://opensource.org/proliferation . As a simple example, there are a huge number of variants of the 4-clause BSD licenses where the advertising clause lists more and more people besides the University of California; they're all open-source licenses under the Open Source Definition, but the OSI isn't interested in promoting them, because including all of those advertising clauses is a pain.
I think this post is not claiming that the license is (yet) approved by OSI, but it is claiming that it's an open source license under the OSD.
Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
#14This is just more license proliferation and a solution to a nonexistent problem. Releasing software under a license like the GPL doesn't somehow prevent you from making money from it. See Ardour - GPLv2, paid binaries.
[deleted]
Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
#15This (under the same name and version 1.0) has already been presented to FSF and OSI in the 2000s and 2010 on their mailing lists and other places, so I guess it didn't get approval. Since it thus isn't an open-source license, why present it as such in article title - starting out dishonest is probably not a good idea. If I'm wrong and it is approved by OSI, that info should probably be more prominent in the blog pos…
There's a number of other reasons the OSI doesn't approve licenses, such as avoiding license proliferation https://opensource.org/proliferation . As a simple example, there are a huge number of variants of the 4-clause BSD licenses where the advertising clause lists more and more people besides the University of California; they're all open-source licenses under the Open Source Definition, but the OSI isn't intereste…
Still, the claim of "open source" or "libre" or "free software" doesn't hold water effectively if there is nobody to verify it (lawyers are probably needed, too). License proliferation is a separate issue.
BTW, the OSI people on their mailing list weren't convinced that the license is conformant (during the grace period) in 2008, 2009, or 2013. Hypothetically there could have been a change of heart since, but I can't know either way without much more research.
My main point is that there is a lack of transparency in the linked blog post about the license by ECC (Zooko?).
EDIT: If someone wants to choose this (or any other) license, it is important for them to know if it is legally sound, how compatible it is with other licenses/project, and possibly also what are the prospects for the license's future adoption in the "market". Approval by FSF or OSI gives some assurance with all of those. Without that everyone involved with software licensed under the license will just lose time, unless hypothetically TGPPL makes it really big, big enough for everyone to switch from FSF and OSI approved licenses to TGPPL.
Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
#16I've never understood why there isn't a dev framework to allow users to "unlock" certain FOSS features.
E.g., you scroll through a list of already implemented/tested features that are stored somewhere that isn't publicly accessible, perhaps with demo videos if it's UI stuff. Each one is priced. If someone pays the price, then the source for the feature gets automerged (if possible) and ships with the next version of the software.
If it's served by the same maintainers who run the project then there's no trust issues with it.
Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
#17Can someone better-versed in legalese explain how this works? What is the restriction before the 12 months (and what happens after that?). Say I make money from the code, what about the contributors? Do they contribute code and get nothing for it, or am I supposed to pay them a cut?
Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
#18“Congress shall have power… to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Depends on the time limit. US copyright was once 23 years, now it's 95-120 years in the US. If this is for 1 year, well, maybe. If it's for 10 years, no.
And can it be "evergreened", with the time limit running out 1 year after the most recent change? (See MPEG-LA for how to do that.)
Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
#19This is just more license proliferation and a solution to a nonexistent problem. Releasing software under a license like the GPL doesn't somehow prevent you from making money from it. See Ardour - GPLv2, paid binaries.
That's just semantics. Sure, nothing in the license says you can't make money, but the basic rules of capitalism say you won't. Every single model I've heard of is unsustainable because of the cost of development puts the developer at a permanent disadvantage.
A "repackager" can charge less than the developer while also having much higher margins. Lower price leads to more market share, which brings more total revenue. In addition, these companies now have more to spend on advertising etc., bringing in even more money, none of which ever has to go to the original devs.
This is simply unavoidable and the only reason we don't see it more often is that most of us with the required skills have morals telling us to not do that and those who don't have much better ways of getting money without creating value.
Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license
#20I've never understood why there isn't a dev framework to allow users to "unlock" certain FOSS features. E.g., you scroll through a list of already implemented/tested features that are stored somewhere that isn't publicly accessible, perhaps with demo videos if it's UI stuff. Each one is priced. If someone pays the price, then the source for the feature gets automerged (if possible) and ships with the next version of…
So you want developers to spend a lot of time making new features on spec?