search

margyle / decaf

Decaf: Does Every Coffee Action, Friend
26 stars 10 forks source link

License #12

Open jjok opened 5 years ago

jjok commented 5 years ago

@margyle Could you list your requirements for the license?

Do all Mugsy-related repositories (eg the front-end) have the same requirements?

margyle commented 5 years ago

Basically I want it to be permissive for everyone except Starbucks, Keurig, and other very large coffee companies. Some flavor of GPL would work for that because large companies wouldn't touch GPL code. But, your point about plugins running on Mugsy made a lot of sense to me. I want to encourage folks to write code/plugins/integrations for Mugsy and I want them to be able to commercialize them if they wish. I understand that allowing them to close source their code is a part of that.

I also understand that this is basically a philosophical question when it comes down to it. My desire to keep Starbucks away might seem silly but I have already had interactions with them related to Mugsy where they were extremely deceptive.

What if we did a dual license? Some options might be:

  1. Code running on Mugsy is MIT but when run on other hardware it is some flavor of GPL
  2. Code is some flavor of GPL but we will grant an MIT license by request

I like the dual license option because it's always open. Starbucks can use it just like everyone else but they need to give back. Smaller devs who have a great idea can get an MIT granted and proceed with their interests protected.

The main concern is where is that line? How do we decide who is not allowed to get an MIT? This could be a simple as saying any company/person with under $5 million in revenue is automatically granted an MIT license.

I understand that this complicates things and I am willing and able to be convinced that some other option is better. Im all ears.

jjok commented 5 years ago

Do you know if any examples of other software that has more than one license?

jjok commented 5 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing

davidphillips2 commented 5 years ago

I can see it now: Mugsy Enterprise Edition

margyle commented 5 years ago

I can see it now: Mugsy Enterprise Edition

Haha, my intention is not to sell licenses! It's really quite a conundrum. That's why I think the GPL for large entities is the best option. I would be lying if I said that seeing Decaf running on a Starbucks machine wouldn't piss me off.

@jjok What are your thoughts at this point? Any specific concerns from the perspective of an active contributor? I understand that there's basically two teams when it comes to OSS- copyleft and permissive. This seems like a good compromise, but like I said earlier, I'm open to all suggestions and perspectives.

jjok commented 5 years ago

What are your thoughts at this point?

Don't know. Still trying to work it out.

What are your actual concerns about the large companies? Them using your machines and software to generally make a lot of money that you won't see? Customising the software/hardware without contributing anything back to the community? I assume you've got a specific concern from your previous interactions with them.

jjok commented 5 years ago

Have you seen the Creative Commons stuff? You can choose if you want to allow commercial use or not, and if people can make changes, and if they have to share their changes.

https://creativecommons.org/choose/