License: switch to a software license

[alexei]

CC licenses are not commonly used for software. See also http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F

[dvbmgr]

I already sent them an email. (but they didn't answer the last)

Dear,

I didn’t understand this sentense well:

    I do not know why some people have decided that it is Open Source.

Do you mean: it wasn’t my choice to make this software opensource or I
don’t understand why some people dicided that a certain license is
opensource and another not ?

In the second case, I can explain a bit: you’re misconfusing opensource
and free. A software whose sources are open is not necesserly considered
as "free"; you could find an explaination
[there](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html), a software is
considered as opensource when anyone can access to the sources. A free
software is necesserly opensource, but it could also be sold, as said
[in this document](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html).

Best regards,
David Baumgartner.

Le 16.10.13 22:54, RainLoop Support a écrit :

    Dear David Baumgartner, 


    Actually, picking a license is a sore point. I was after simple and
    clear license which allowed for distributing code for non-commercial use
    at no cost, and for adding a requirement for those who wish to use it
    commercially. In addition, I wanted to have the exact same code
    regardless of licensing type, so that it would be possible to test the
    application during any amount of time before purchasing a license.

    I do not know why some people have decided that it is Open Source.

    And thanks for the comment about the creative commons license.

    October 16 2013 11:45 PM "David Baumgartner"
    <[email protected]
    <mailto:%22David%20Baumgartner%22%20<[email protected]>>   wrote:

        Hello,

        Someone made me notice the use of « free » on your website but that your
        software isn't actually: CC BY is considered as a "non-free" license by
        the Free Software Fundation according to [this
        page](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html). In a way, I
        understand this guy: he was searching for a free webmail interface for a
        while, and when he found yours and saw that it wasn't actually free as
        he intended, he was really disappointed. According to him, you should
        better use "complimentary" or something like this instead of "free".

        In my opinion, the problem is the license: you use CC BY-NC.

        Firstly, its not designed for software but mostly for arts and texts.

        Then, if your point is "NC", the "SA" is missing, because without this,
        anyone could change the terms to WTFPL, for example, and use it for
        commercial purpose. I suggest you to use a license that is approuved by
        the Free Software Foundation, because this is what is missing currently:
        there's a lot of non-free webmail interfaces, but no free which is
        really good as yours. There's a list here:
        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html. I usually use MIT or
        BSD, but I think Apache 2.0 is a good one for you.
        http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0

        That's just a little suggestion in your promising software, but it could
        be really important for some users.

        Best regards,
        David Baumgartner.

[alexei]

So, in the end, is this open source, or not? The license text states that you are free to adapt the work.

[RainLoop]

We know that the CC license is not recommended for the software.
However - this license is clear and simple for users.

Most of all, we rewrite the license in order to be suitable for the software, limiting commercial use only.
In this case, the source code is available to everyone.

[Calinou]

Why the hell are you using NC in the first place? Are you even planning on making any profit on this?

The NC clause is anyway silly and shouldn't be used.

There are simple and clear licenses that are free and most users don't even read licenses anyway.

[RainLoop]

Why?

Software development costs nothing?
Programmers should work for an idea?

[Calinou]

RainLoop: there are quite a lot of developers of artists who work for other reason than just money. Also, you can make money with free/libre software ("pay what you want", crowdfunding... are some examples).

davbaumgartner: CC BY and CC BY-SA are free. CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-SA and CC BY-NC-ND are not. Also, no license allows using less restrictions than the original one. You can't relicense something under BY-NC to WTFPL (which is a bad license by the way), you can only add additional restrictions.

[ariejan]

@RainLoop from what I understand is that you want to reserve the right to sell commercial licenses. E.g. you're free to use this non-commercially, but if you want to use it commercially, you'd have to buy a license of some sort.

IMHO this is a flawed model that will hurt adoption. Take a look at Gitlab. It's licensed under MIT (e.g. do/use whatever you want), but I know Sytze from Gitlab.com is doing some serious business selling enterprise licenses.

Having a free product (even commercially) makes it easy for companies to use and evaluate your product. If your "enterprise service" adds more value, it's an easy step to take.

At this moment, I am not permitted evaluate your software by actually using it for my company.

License this whatever way you see fit, but from a user and business perspective, going open source is the way to go.

Also check http://choosealicense.com/ for some more details on different licenses.

[RainLoop]

Having a free product (even commercially) makes it easy for companies to use
and evaluate your product. If your "enterprise service" adds more value, it's an easy step to take.

The basic idea that there was no difference between the versions.

At this moment, I am not permitted evaluate your software by actually using it for my company.

But you can test RainLoop Webmail without buying a license. Application doesn't have any code restrictions.

going open source is the way to go.

Code is open and available on github.

[ariejan]

@RainLoop I agree with what you say, but:

But you can test RainLoop Webmail without buying a license. Application doesn't have any code restrictions.

Yes. But, the license says I can't use it commercially. Most people will probably ignore (if they even read it), but others won't causing you missed opportunities in selling commercial (support) licenses.

[alexei]

Given that I started this thread, allow me to explain why I did so: in the beginning, at least, the license was not clear (to me) whether I'm allowed to modify the code or not. That's why I asked the RainLoop team to switch to a license such as BSD, MIT, GPL etc., a license that is common among (open source) software vendors and so easy to grasp for people, like myself, who don't speak legalese but are accustomed to them.

Now, if RainLoop wants to make their software open source and freely available for personal use, but insists that commercial users pay royalties, it's their right to do so. Honestly, discussions along the lines of "you should do X", "trust me", "I know what's best for you" are fallacious. Especially when you're basically saying they should be giving their work for free.

[ariejan]

@alexei @RainLoop I'm not saying @RainLoop should do one or the other. All I tried to do is point out how I perceive the current licensing situation, how I think it can be improved and provide arguments for that. It's up to @RainLoop to do with that information whatever he wants.

[euank]

@RainLoop One valid option is to dual-license. One example of a software using this model is qt.

If all people who hold copyright over any part of it (all contributors) agree, you can simply declare "This code is under the GPLv3 for all non-commercial uses. For commercial uses, you must purchase a license from us for $X". That's a valid way to do these things and it allows you to use a license actually suitable for source code.

The CC license you're using now is definitely not meant to be used here and I personally find it problematic. The license issue is sufficient that I'm sticking with other webmail solutions that I find to have an inferior user interface.

[eligrey]

@RainLoop Any person or company that conducts any business over email is going to have trouble using this with your non-commerical restriction, even in a private internal installation.

You have probably conducted business over email yourself. You don't have to worry about what you email using RainLoop, since you own the copyright, but users will have to worry about this. A real open source software license would alleviate these issues.

[markuman]

The question is - what is commercial use of a webmail client?
When you're selling mail accounts and offer rainloop as the webinterface - yes, this is commercial usage of rainloop, because you profit from it.
When you're renting cars and use rainloop as you webmailer for writing mails - imho, no. you don't make money with rainloop here.

[RainLoop]

What do you think about a flowplayer license https://flowplayer.org/license/ ?

[eligrey]

I'd much rather use the flowplayer license than CC.

[Calinou]

No, don't do that. That license isn't free/libre to begin with. It isn't a FSF and OSI-approved license either.

It is also preferable not to do trademark stuff in licenses.

Pick a license on this list, please: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list – AGPLv3 would be especially suited for this.