# Source Available Software Licenses #legal ## See also ### [[Commercial Open Source Software]] ### (Wikipedia page) [Multi-licensing](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Multi-licensing) ## Licenses ### [The Commons Clause](https://commonsclause.com/) - Not a license, but rather a clause you add to an existing open source license, e.g. the [[MIT License]] or [[Apache License 2.0]] - Early iteration of source-available licenses with some flaws ### [Elastic License 2.0 (ELv2)](https://www.elastic.co/licensing/elastic-license) - Drafted with help of [[Heather Meeker]], so similar in spirit to the [[#PolyForm Licenses https polyformproject org licenses|Polyform Licenses]] - A decent, modern successor to Commons Clause licenses - [FAQ on Elastic License 2.0](https://www.elastic.co/licensing/elastic-license/faq) - (Blog post by Elastic) [Introducing Elastic License v2, simplified and more permissive](https://www.elastic.co/blog/elastic-license-v2) ### [PolyForm Licenses](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/) By [[PolyForm Project|The PolyForm Project]] ([[Heather Meeker]] et al) - [PolyForm Noncommercial](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0) is a general noncommercial license for software. - [PolyForm Perimeter](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/perimeter/1.0.0) permits uses other than those that compete with the software. - [PolyForm Shield](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/shield/1.0.0/) permits uses other than those that compete with the provider of the software. - [PolyForm Strict](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/strict/1.0.0) removes permission to distribute copies and make changes, leaving only permission to use for noncommercial purposes. - [PolyForm Internal Use](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/internal-use/1.0.0) permits use for internal business purposes. - [PolyForm Small Business](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/small-business/1.0.0) permits use by small businesses and other small organizations. - [PolyForm Free Trial](https://polyformproject.org/licenses/free-trial/1.0.0) permits a free, time-limited trial. ![[Screen Shot 2022-07-12 at 7.15.32 PM.png]] ### [PolyForm Commercial License Generator](https://commercial.polyformproject.org/) If the standard PolyForm License menu is insufficient. ### [Redis Source Available License](https://redis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/redis-source-available-license.pdf) (RSAL) - Is [[Redis]]-specific, but a similar license can be modeled after it. The license itself is not copyrighted. - The full terms of the Redis Source Available License (RSAL) can be found [here](https://redis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/redis-source-available-license.pdf) ### [Mega Limited Code Review License](https://github.com/meganz/MEGAsync/blob/master/LICENCE.md) - Very restrictive: "This licence grants you the rights, and only the rights, set out below, to access and review Mega's code." - The license itself is not copyrighted. ### ["Non-free licenses" section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Non-free_licenses) of Wikipedia page on source-available software In addition to the above, lists: - GitLab Enterprise Edition License (EE) - Microsoft Shared Source Initiative - Old Scilab License - Server Side Public License - SugarCRM Public License - TrueCrypt License - BeeGFS End User License Agreement ### Non-example: Creative Commons Licenses tl;dr: Creative Commons Licenses were not designed for software. From their [FAQ](https://creativecommons.org/faq/#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F) : > Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software. Many software licenses also address patent rights, which are important to software but may not be applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate CC-licensed work with other free software. Existing software licenses were designed specifically for use with software and offer a similar set of rights to the Creative Commons licenses. > While we recommend against using a CC license on software itself, CC licenses may be used for software documentation, as well as for separate artistic elements such as game art or music. The FAQ contains more information about compatilibity of the Creative Commons licenses with GPLv3, etc. For an even more detailed explanation, see ["Why is CC BY-SA discouraged for code?"](https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/1718) on Stack Exchange. ## [What’s up with these new not-open source licenses?](https://github.blog/2021-03-18-whats-up-with-these-new-not-open-source-licenses/) ([[GitHub]] Blog) [[2021-03-18]] **Excerpt: "How we got here"** A ‘single source’ open source project is where a single, for-profit, company dominates the project roadmap and maintainer status as its main revenue generator for ‘open-core’ or ‘dual-licensing’ revenue streams. In [open-core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model), a vendor sells add-ons or services around a free and open source software (FOSS) project under a commercial license. In [dual-licensing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing), a vendor releases software under a FOSS license with obligations that are difficult for some businesses to meet and also offers that same software under a commercial license. Both models use open source for exponential growth. The developer that grabs the free and open product today is (or works for) tomorrow’s paying customer. As the cloud grows, both models face challenges. The shift from server rooms to data centers enables cloud vendors to use the open source license to stand up offerings based on the open-core or dual-licensed project, often under pressure from customers who want to buy all their computing services from a single company. This puts the open-core or dual license business at risk: the cloud vendors suddenly have the initial relationship with users, making it more difficult for the open-core or dual-license vendor to develop relationships that convert to sales. In response to this pressure, many open-core or dual-license companies, including [Confluent](https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license/), [MongoDB](https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/mongodb-now-released-under-the-server-side-public-license), [Cockroach Labs](https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroachdb/), [Redis Labs](https://redislabs.com/blog/redis-labs-modules-license-changes/), [Timescale](https://blog.timescale.com/blog/building-open-source-business-in-cloud-era-v2/), and [Graylog](https://www.graylog.org/post/graylog-v4-0-licensing-sspl) moved away from OSI-approved licenses to licenses that are not ‘open source.’ These new ‘source available’ licenses contain restrictions to prevent cloud infrastructure providers from building a service out of their code. Early efforts like [the commons clause](https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause) limited ‘commercial use’ broadly and users found that the license language [‘created some confusion and uncertainty.’](https://redislabs.com/legal/licenses/#:~:text=Commons%20Clause%2C%20the%20license%20previously%20used%20for%20Redis,licenses%20to%20limit%20commercial%20sale%20of%20the%20software.) Recent efforts by [Elastic](https://www.elastic.co/blog/elastic-license-v2) and others are more surgical. They [simply](https://www.elastic.co/licensing/elastic-license) attempt to restrict users from standing up the software alone as a service. The goal of these new licenses is to continue to capitalize on the widespread availability of the software and its source code to gain future customers while shutting out competing SaaS services based on the same code. ## [Redis Licensing Overview](https://redis.com/legal/licenses/) ### [Criticism](https://redis.com/legal/licenses/#:~:text=Commons%20Clause%2C%20the%20license%20previously%20used%20for%20Redis,licenses%20to%20limit%20commercial%20sale%20of%20the%20software.) of the Commons Clause ***Why did you change from Apache2 modified with Commons Clause to RSAL?*** *The use of Commons Clause as a rider to an existing open source license (i.e. Apache2) — as well as the agreement’s use of the term “substantial” to define what is and is not allowed — created some confusion and uncertainty regarding the terms of use. Last but not least, some Commons Clause restrictions regarding the support of the software worked against our intention to help grow the ecosystem around Redis Modules.* ### Criticism of AGPL ([GNU Affero General Public License](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)) ***Why didn’t you use AGPL for Redis Modules?*** *We initially licensed some of Redis Ltd.’s early Redis Modules under AGPL. However, we later realized that AGPL did not prevent cloud providers from creating managed services using our code. Furthermore, we received requests from developers at large enterprises to move from AGPL to a more permissive license, because the use of AGPL was against their company policies.* ### [[Redis]]' solution: [[#Redis Source Available License RSAL]] ## [Lack of leadership in open source results in source-available licenses](https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/30/lack-of-leadership-in-open-source-results-in-source-available-licenses/) ([[TechCrunch]]) [[2019-05-30]] - Decent article with plenty of criticism for the [[Open Source Initiative]] and [[Amazon]]. Mentions the [[PolyForm Project]]