DevWheels

[mrj]

License Name

The DevWheels Licence, Version 1

License Short Identifier

DevWheels1

Link

https://devwheels.com/

Description

A package released under the DevWheels Licence can be freely examined, distributed, forked, and re-released with changes. There are no restrictions on use, once the production-deployment licence fee (if any) for that class of user is paid. Development and evaluation uses are always beer-free.

Those who release a changed package must distribute a portion of the licence fees they receive to the owners of the package versions from which their release was directly derived. This happens recursively up the entire version, fork, inclusion, and dependency trees, aided by non-proprietary licensing servers. The licensing payment retained by each release is its licence fee minus the sum of the fees charged by that package-version's immediately-upstream package-versions, rewarding everyone according to their value-add, while simultaneously allowing free development. There is an equivalent rule for version upgrades.

So I'd say that DevWheels meets points 1 and 2 of the Fair Source Definition. Delayed open-source publication would be implemented as advance non-public releases under a more restrictive licence. Once a DevWheels-licensed package is released, there are no restrictions on distribution.

[ezekg]

Thanks for submitting this. My initial thoughts are that if the license doesn't always undergo DOSP, then it can't be a fair source license. Can you explain more how you envision the DOSP portion of the license working? The license itself is a bit dense compared to FSL/FCL, so apologies if I missed it somewhere (OP mentions DOSP as a footnote). The derivative-tree distributions are very interesting. I wonder how it'd end up working in practice.

One more concern: the blanket evaluation-use clause doesn't really jive with the ethos of fair source. We would prefer minimal restrictions, and a blanket restriction on all non-production use unless a license fee is paid strays a bit too far from "minimal." This type of license is also not easily enforceable from the software level, which we would also prefer:

Fair Source licenses are written such that it is difficult to violate them. If Fair Source Software includes feature restrictions based on certain criteria, the burden is on the software to monitor and enforce the criteria, not the user of the software.

wdyt?

[mrj]

Thanks Zeke for thinking about this.

I guess the Fair Source concept is to make commercial open software practical by imposing heavy restrictions other than inspection on the software prior to an expiry period, before moving to a fully Open Source licence for the old releases.

DevWheels instead imposes fewer restrictions from the get go (totally libre, but not gratis), giving less pressure to go gratis after some delay. It would however be useful to add DOSP clauses to the licence, because although I see most interest in fresh open software at a price, I also see interest from the impecunious in not having to pay, despite being behind the times. I'll have think about what rules are required to make this work.

If a Fair Source Licence is any licence that tries to balance the freedom of users to use and customise, and the freedom of developers to expoit their work, then DevWheels is definitely up your alley, with or without DOSP clauses.

I'm not sure what you're saying about evaluation uses. Is there something you don't like about DevWheels' blanket allowance of non-production uses?

As for enforcement, you're right that exposing the source and build systems allow any communication with a licensing server to be easily disabled. For private uses, you have to rely on paying users getting better support; for public uses, business pirates risk reputational damage and getting sued for licence violations. How do Fair Source licences differ?

[mrj]

Zeke, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the tension a fixed expiry term creates. Users appreciate a known delay, but those who release under a Fair Licence may only want to fully open code when it would no longer significantly affect their business, which would vary according to the pace of functionality, and business conditions.

I fear DevWheels is in the uncanny valley of licence permissiveness: Rejected by OSI purists, but too free to build a serious business around because someone with more resources can leave you in the dust as the paid but underpaid OG seed dev.