I'm considering warranty disclaimers, here are some I've found.

http://www.intranet-server.co.uk/copyright.htm
http://www.rcp.co.uk/terms_conditions.htm
http://www.epicpc.co.uk/tech/disclaimer.htm
http://www.danieljackson.co.uk/pocketpc/disclaim.html
http://www.xsystems.co.uk/machinehead/disclaim.html

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
http://www.bitkeeper.com/manpages/bk-bkl-1.html

They all use similar but not exactly the same language. My intention for the license is to KISS wherever possible. Does anyone know what the actual required text to disclaim warranty is (if any)?

Edited by author 09-09-2002 03:35 AM
Something I would be really interested in knowing is what people think of the idea of being forced to use autoUpdate if they use the free license?

This is an idea put forward by the BitKeeper people as one of the conditions of free use of BitKeeper, the idea being that as a free user you contribute by always running the latest version of the code. This in turn means that the latest version should be well tested.

Now, in principle, I am against doing auto updates without the users consent and, at the moment, liveTopics comes with auto update disabled. However Marc's activeRenderer comes configured the other way around and I assume he doesn't have people complaining about it (Marc?)

So I am guessing that the idea of autoUpdate coming enabled doesn't necessarily bother too many people (sample size).

However this moves it on a little by saying that you won't have a checkbox, you won't be able to turn auto-update off.

What do people think about that?

[Note: I would only do this anyway if it was possible to only autoUpdate to *release* versions. I wouldn't want to try and force people to always be on the latest beta!]

Do I need to mention re-distribution of an unmodified version in conjunction with another product?

After a comment from Scott Adams I have ammended the section of the LSLA that concerns personal & non-commercial use to read:

1. In order to qualify for the LSLA your use of the liveTopics software must be personal and non-commercial. Non-commercial use includes:
i. Use of liveTopics for teaching on a course at an accredited academic institution.
ii. Use of liveTopics for research being carried out by an accredited academic institution so long as that research does not result in commercial products or patents.
iii. Use of liveTopics by a registered not-for-profit organisation.

Edited by author 09-08-2002 11:23 AM
Terry Frazier has brought up an interesting point regarding the LSLA, specifically what risks do I incur if I enforce auto-updates on users and something goes wrong?

Obviously it is not in my interests for anything to go horribly wrong as I don't want to upset users however inevitably if a thing can go wrong at some point it will.

In the first place I will have the warranty disclaimer protection. The risk a user incurs with auto-update is not really any greater since, in theory, an update could be defective whether it was installed automatically or manually. It's not clear to me that auto-update increases my risk.

Secondly if something is going badly wrong then this is a good way of catching it quickly. This is part of the service that the users provide in return for the software.

However as I said before I'm not looking to put anyone's data at risk. So how can we avoid that situation?

1. Auto-updates don't necessary get *every* change. It may be that user's only automatically get version upgrades and not alpha/beta releases.
2. Auto-updates should make good backups.
3. Provide a failsafe rollback mechanism
   

Thoughts?

I have posted a first draft of what I am calling the

liveTopics Software License Agreement (LSLA)

for review:

The document is here.
The comments on the document are here.

I have tried to keep the philosophy of Larry McEvoy's interview & the BKL in mind as I wrote it.

I would really appreciate any comments or criticisms (no matter how scathing). Feel free to curb my control freak tendencies!

Warranty disclaimers.

I see a lot of language in different licenses disclaiming warranty. A lot of it seems badly worded, confusing, etc.. I wonder how much is actually written by a legal expert and how much has been copied from other warranties by people like me!

Can anyone point me at a definitive warranty disclaimer?

Hi folks,

Prompted by David I have begun looking into what it means to say "commercial use." As I mentioned before I tried writing down what I meant by that and I got pretty confused, pretty quickly.

Looking on the web most of the language I find is of the form:

    "only for your personal, non-commercial use, "

without defining it also. It seems like there is a "collective understanding" without a formal understanding. This is somewhat verified by the fact that you can tell me some activity e.g. "we sell software for profit" and I can probably tell if you if that is commercial or not.

I can find definitions for commercial use of materials such as this one:

    "Commercial use is defined as the use of any product offered for sale, lease, rental or barter on any level, or use in advertising."

    [From http://www.zondervan.com/desk/rights.asp?Page=permbible]

but not of activity (at least not that doesn't end in a 404 error).

Does anyone have a reasonable definition of commercial activity?

My alternative seems to be to follow the crowd and use phrases like "personal, non-commercial use."

This is probably okay since, as a previous poster stated, I am unlikely to be in a position to afford to persue "license dodgers" through the courts.

Thoughts?

Edited by author 09-06-2002 09:38 PM
http://www.thoughthorizon.com has a commercial bent in that it supports my consulting as a knowledge management consultant. I refer potential clients to it as a common resource. However, as you can see, it's available to all.

But to be fair to Matt, this is not a discussion about my site. We can take that up via david@thoughthorizon.com

In /m12 David asks whether I think ThoughtHorizon is commerical or not.

I have to say I don't know but my gut feeling is not. I don't see any evidence of commerical activity: no adverts, no sign of anything for sale, no offer of services.

So I'd turn it around: is it meant to be commerical?

Of course this leads to the question: What do we mean by commercial in the first place?

I tried to define that for myself on the tube last night and didn't get very far!

Hi Matt and everyone
This is a very good discussion to be having. I've been considering these licensing issues for myRadio, in a very similar way, though not as much depth. So, it's very cool.

A few scattered thoughts, on licensing and business plans.

+ myRadio is designed for extendability by other developers. I'd like to see an "extendable" license, where use of the bundled tool set is covered by the same license. This could also work for tools that myRadio integrates with (like aR) and non-myRadio tools - for example bundled together in an enterprise solution, as has been discussed with evectors. Of course, these tools will be free to enforce any license of their choosing if they wish.

+ There's great potential in the bundled enterprise solution, from a marketing perspective. How would fees be distributed? And how would a single registration for a set of tools be implemented?

+ Licensing to Userland would be brilliant.

+ Definitely solicit donations. Without even asking for it, I have received donations for myRadio. Super cool. At the moment, I am only working for myself, by semi-choice. Donations are a great motivator, though not enough to survive!

+ Any registration scheme is easily defeatable in Radio, because of the open code. Yes, portions of source code can be removed for distribution, but unless the entire tool removes source code, there is always some place to defeat this protection. Is this a worry?

I am out of my element when it comes to monetizing the technologies, so any suggestions, for myRadio and others, are welcome.

Hey Matt sorry not to weigh in sooner. Frankly, even though I am a lawyer, I don't know enough about the many intracacies of software licensing to speak on this issue (especially since if I were to speak I think people would assign too much weight to what I say, since I am a lawyer). It sounds like you and Marc have a good understanding of each other's objectives and there is no friction there (quite the opposite) so that's good. I think Marc's suggestion of putting out a Tip Jar is a good idea; I'd definitely kick in some dough and would also try to drum up business for you (and for Marc too). Start there. liveTopics is a really cool tool, and I think it (along with activeRenderer) add important functionality to Radio.

> (4) I should consider offering a PayPal/Amazon Tip Jar option for non-commercial users who wish to contribute to the development of lT.

Good idea. Let me know if you raise any money that way. If it works for you, I'll consider it for aR.

> (5) I need a "Powered by liveTopics" logo that users may put on their sites if they wish (or not, if they don't)

Great for visibility and linkbacks. I'll try to find someone willing to design a Powered by activeRenderer logo. I've found out that including a 'how this works' link with aR activated interfaces works well.

Thanks Marc for that, and for all your help thus far. I do appreciate it.

Matt, and all concerned :

You are free to use activeRenderer's code in whatever way you wish, commercial or not.

You are 'actively' encouraged to modify the code to best fit your needs, and create innovative software with it.

Just mention aR at the top of any code you make use of. Rest assured I won't sue anyone that doesn't comply with this restriction. I'll just consider him to be unconsiderate and/or unprofessional.

I will be personally delighted if Matt can make a penny or two with liveTopics, in whatever way he dares to release version 1.0.

activeRenderer is not a product, it's at best an enabling technology and more to the point a p.r. stunt. Those can be expensive, but I've never found a way to make anyone directly pay for a p.r. gimmick (I'm not Manchester United :-)

The truth is, there is no market for activeRenderer, just 193 individually registered users so far, so why bother ?

As the niche expands - I'm counting on liveTopics, myRadio, anybody who cares to join - and as I learn more about the market and web publishing technologies, I may release some new software product, with features targeted for this market, complete with a pricing scheme and matching license. I probably won't do it all on my own.

Until that day cometh, I won't loose any sleep over licensing or usage rights.

Following on from what Scott said I have read the interview with Larry McEvoy from BitMover (or at least most of it, the stuff about woodworking & Linux kernel hacking was a bit over my head).

The germaine section seems to be:

Free users: these users don't pay in money, but they do pay. They pay by using the product and pointing out bugs. BitKeeper is a dramatically better product because of the free users. The BKL, the free usage license, insists that you are running the latest images, because that's where the free users provide value. It doesn't help anyone to get bug reports on problems we've already fixed. The job of the free users is to help debug the latest.

Commercial users: these users pay in money which funds further development. As a commercial user, they can pick which release they want to run, which sometimes means they stay back for stability reasons, perceived or otherwise. They benefit from the free users running a new release first, and it's typical that they wait for the timestamps in the download area to be a few weeks old before upgrading.

Vendor: we provide value in the form of the product and support. We get the bug fix value from the free users and financial benefit from the commercial users. The money is turned right around into additional development.

[KernelTrap]

p.s. I guess I have broken copyright law in quoting the above passage from the article.

I'm very grateful to everyone who has contributed so far, it's been useful already.

Here is what I've distilled from the messages so far:

(1) There needs to be a precise definition of what is and is not considered to be commercial use (and hence subject to a license fee)

(2) I need an idea of how much revenue I am looking to genereate from liveTopics.

(3) I should investigate licensing liveTopics to Userland for inclusion in Radio.

(4) I should consider offering a PayPal/Amazon Tip Jar option for non-commercial users who wish to contribute to the development of lT.

(5) I need a "Powered by liveTopics" logo that users may put on their sites if they wish (or not, if they don't)

(6) There needs to be an effective license management system.

(7) I need to come to a firm understanding with Marc Barrot about how liveTopics and activeRenderer sit together.

(8) Copyright notices & license info need to be prominent in the liveTopics source.

1) I still think you need further definition on what consitutues personal, academic and commercial, especially as your definition of commercial is Intranet. These are common terms but you'll need to define them explicity in your agreement.

2) I can't see why you would charge a company for internal use but not for public use. Also, please look at www.thoughthorizon.com and tell me if you think it is commercial or not. I saw one definition of commercial where it was "if the site is used to make money (ie. sales)" A promotional site wasn't commercial - as I read it anyway.

3) Have you considered approaching UserLand to make this part of their standard product. Then you just have to license to them.

4) You are always going to be a risk because the software is available to some (not all, because most users won't be able to understand it). I'd advise however putting a copyright note on every piece of code and table you have.

5) You could require registration before the product works. This would direct people to the website where you can ensure they have read your license.

6) You speak of making money but I don't get a sense you have committed to that yet. My suggestion is set a figure (and you don't have to tell us) and work to that.

7) See a lawyer.

Cheers,

David
www.thoughthorizon.com

Hi,

Mark asked me to contribute some feedback. Bear in mind that I don't know that much about LiveTopic per se but I do know my way around OS licensing models. I don't see a way to respond individually to each message so this will be long.
I think that this type of licensing model is definitely valid. Fee for commercial use, free for others.

Comments based on other messages

A) The source must be open based on the type of dev environment

B) There won't be a lot of developers since the deve environment isn't mainstream

C) Donate type payment is a great idea; you could always enhance this with an Amazon wishlist

D) Powered by buttons are fine but shouldn't be required, IMHO. Impossible to enforce so making it optional generally gives a) better goodwill and b) is actually done by more people since it's optional

E) The points on the JavaScript seem to be correct. I'd personally want at least an email from the author of ActiveRenderer saying it is ok.

F) I'd definitely look at the MT license but Ben and Mena, while outstanding people with a fantastic product, don't seem to really understand the business issues (note -- I have talked with them in person about the business issues and I'm not trying to be mean) so venture here with care

Best
Scott
http://www.fuzzygroup.net/

References to look at:
The summarized list of all Open Source licenses available from http://www.sourceforget.net
The BitKeeper license which this most closely resembles, http://www.bitkeeper.com/
The KernelTrap interview with the founder of BitKeeper from http://www.kerneltrap.org/

I guess I would go one more step farther. I would make sure that there was some type of 'donate'-type payment for those that might be in the "exempt" category. I know that when I use something often (that does not require payment), I often like to send something to support the effort. I see liveTopics as the genesis of what could help blogs act as knowledge management tools (k-logs).

You might also want to have people add a link on their page that says that it was developed with liveTopic (I am not sure that I am sold on this idea).

I like where the rest of the discussion is going.
----Martin----

Edited by author 09-04-2002 04:35 PM
I've said before that environments like Radio stretch the concept of "linking".

On the desktop side, are you actually calling any activeRenderer code? If aR is only being used to render outlines as part of Radio's "Publish" mechanism, wherein Radio is doing all of the "linking", you're in the clear regardless of aR's license (which I've been unable to locate). You aren't distributing aR, you aren't "linking" to it in any sense of the word.

On the browsing end, the GPL generally exempts output from it's provisions... but this is a special case because the output contains a portion of the program (the JavaScript routines). It's a huge stretch to say that you are "linking" to this when creating hyperlinks from posts to the topic index, but in our litigious society anything is possible.

Luckily the JavaScript says "You may use and distribute this code freely, just keep this header information intact."

Seems to me that you have nothing to worry about under these circumstances.

-Bryce

ps: IANAL

pps: Marc -- I'm not implying that you would sue anyone ;-)

ppps: After posting I realized that aR's JavaScript is being using in the liveTopics interface on the desktop. That is still fine under Marc's statement within the JavaScript, but if it were GPL software then that would be a problem.

Thanks, I'll take a look at the MT & Groove licenses. Your reference to 3rd party software is also timely as Ernie (whose around here somewhere I think) reminded me that I am "linking" with Marc Barrot's activeRenderer tool.

Now linking in this sense isn't quite linking in the GPL sense, also liveTopics *can* be distributed without AR. But of course I don't want that as AR greatly improves the LT front-end.

I'm hoping Marc will be able to get involved in the discussion so we can figure out how that should work.

Now that your intentions have been defined, you've got something to work with.

Movable Type's license [1] provides an example of how to restrict source modifications and certain commercial uses. Their license fails, however, to codify that a paid license is required for use on a commercial web site (the download page says so, but the license does not and their click-thru is questionable).

Paragraph 4 of Groove's license [2] is something to look at. It restricts commercial use, allows free personal use, and requires a license for personal use in conjuction with non-free third party add-ons.

With regard to free academic use, your license should make clear what uses qualify. Off-hand I cannot think of a good example of this, perhaps Scott knows of one.

Ciao,

-Bryce

ps: IANAL.

[1] http://www.movabletype.org/license.shtml
[2] http://www.groove.net/legal/licenses/client.html

Matt,
My 2 cents...
Am I opposed? No. I speak from the point of view of an educator (I do instructional technology). I think you are considering some reasonable questions with this.
To answer your 2nd question. Yes, it is quite likely that you have a product. Maybe look at licensing some type of per seat fee?
Scott

Edited by author 09-04-2002 09:18 AM
Something I'd be really interested in hearing is whether anyone is really oposed to the idea of liveTopics being a commercial product.

I have no intentions of charging individual users. I would hope that, as the feature set matures, people will find it a useful adjunct to their weblog and they are welcome, more than that - I am want them, to use it.

However upcoming features like the weblog directory, XTM export/import, topicRolls and so on seem to me ideally suited for corporate use. In that environment I would look to charge (although I haven't figured out how much)

Do you think I have a product (or the makings of a product) here?

Edited by author 09-04-2002 07:43 AM
My motivations in choosing this kind of approach to licensing are pragmatic but hardly set in stone. I remain to be convinced of the wisdom of any course.

1) I'm in business for myself now. I'm not developing software in my spare time supported by a steady job. If I can make money from liveTopics I think I have to have that option.

2) I do not forsee a "linux like" community of liveTopics developers committing time & resources. It seems much more likely that there will be focussed collaborations with other developers to integrate products together.

This sort of collaboration does not require a GPL style license. We can agree how this will work between us and how we should compensate each other where necessary.

3) When it comes down to it I am uncomfortable about the thought of giving this thing away. I'm not sure why exactly, it may just be fear of the unknown, but there you go.

Edited by author 09-04-2002 09:19 AM
What I *currently* have in mind is the following type of license:

1) For all personal, public weblogs liveTopics will be free.
2) For all teaching projects, at acredited academic institutions, liveTopics will be free.
3) For commerical use (primarily on a private intranets) there will be a license fee.

(Have I missed any significant cases?)

The source code will be available (with Radio/Frontier I don't have much choice about that) however I will retain control, i.e. users won't have a license to publish their own version.

Edited by author 09-04-2002 07:44 AM
As anyone who has read my blog will know I have been torn by the question of how to license liveTopics. At first it was intended to be commercial, then I was swayed by OpenSource (esp. the Zope project), and now I have swayed back to commercial (albeit in a more limited sense).

Edited by author 09-04-2002 07:53 AM
This topic is to discuss the license for the impending (it will come before the apocalypse) 1.0 release of liveTopics.

For most people reading this the release is mostly a formality since, if you have liveTopics now, you have pretty much the functionality of 1.0.

What I would like to do is use this topic as a forum to discuss what I have in mind for licensing and to solicit the community view. Hopefully a reasonable consensus will emerge or at least a narrower set of options.