For open-source use:
If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3.
For non-commercial use:
You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases.
This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.
From time to time, our non-commercial users may desire an license arrangement different to the one provided by the standard Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 to suit their needs both now and in future, and such terms may be approved and negotiated on a case-by-case basis typically for a fee or other remunerative or protective arrangement.
It's licensed under multiple licenses, one of which is the GPLv3 which is not only open source, it's also free software. By every definition this is open source software.
> "If you are creating an open source application" is a usage restriction/discrimination. That's not allowed for open source licenses.
No it is not. "If you are creating an open source application you may use the software under the GPLv3 or later" means "if you want to comply with the GPLv3+, you may use it under that license".
This is just licensing all the software under 3 separate licenses:
3. For commercial, closed source use you can buy a commercial license.
That's fully acceptable for GPLv3 and open source licensing in general as long as the software can be licensed by you under each of those 3 licenses separately (i.e. the dependencies are all compatible with each license and all contributors have either signed over their rights or have documented agreement to the above licensing conditions).
This is for the exact same reason that you can find dual GPLv3 (or AGPLv3) and closed source commercial licensed projects. It takes a bit of work on the IP management side but it's perfectly acceptable.
If you wanted to improve the wording of your licensing, I'd do the following:
In the licensing section for your README.md:
BrowserBoxPro is licensed separately under the following licenses:
- GNU General Public License v3 (or later) (linked to LICENSES/GPL-3.0.txt)
- Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 (link to LICENSES/PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0.txt)
- BrowserBox Pro perpetual commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Perpetual.txt).
- BrowserBox Pro subscription commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Subscription.txt).
What does this mean for me?
Are you using BrowserBox Pro as it ships?
You may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3 (or later).
Are you modifying BrowserBox Pro or developing software that uses BrowserBox Pro and willing to license those changes under the GPL?
You may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3 (or later).
Are you using BrowserBox Pro, modifying BrowserBox Pro, or developing software that uses BrowserBox Pro in a non-commercial capacity but do not wish to comply with the license terms of the GPLv3?
You may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.0.
Are you using BrowserBox Pro, modifying BrowserBox Pro, or developing software that uses BrowserBox Pro in a commercial capacity but do not wish to comply with the license terms of the GPLv3?
You may purchase a perpetual or subscription based commercial license (link to commercial licensing docs).
LICENSE.md:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-or-later OR PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0 OR BBP-Commercial-Perpetual OR BBP-Commercial-Subscription
BrowserBoxPro is licensed separately under the following licenses:
- GNU General Public License v3 (or later) (linked to LICENSES/GPL-3.0.txt)
- Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 (link to LICENSES/PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0.txt)
- BrowserBox Pro perpetual commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Perpetual.txt).
- BrowserBox Pro subscription commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Subscription.txt).
Download the following linked files and put them under the names listed in the repo.
I think that should clear up any confusion (I am not a lawyer but am decently familiar with licensing). You could also include a "or contact us for special licensing" section like you did for OEM licensing in the README.
jacoblambda I have made a PR^0 with your suggestions, did you want to come over to make a token change so you can sign our CLA, or are you OK for me to use this and give your agreement in a HN comment here (or at the link if you're bothered) to our CLA: https://cla-assistant.io/dosyago/BrowserBox?pullRequest=240
Thanks! I know it's confusing, and I'm a little unsure about whether it's "Open Source" if like this, too. If anyone can tell me this is false, that's good as it's important to get right. But I think it's fine.
The condition they provided was effectively "if you want to use GPLv3 you can use GPLv3". That's perfectly acceptable for GPL. What they are doing on top of this is saying "if you can't/don't want to use GPLv3 but meet some other conditions, we will dual license it under one of these other licenses for you".
Let's say I have an open source project under the GPLv3 which only contains a foo.txt.
"If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3."
So I can merge the BrowserBox Pro under GPLv3 to become part of my project.
Now I remove the foo.txt and my project will be a BrowserBox Pro clone under GPLv3 without the commercial restriction.
IANAL, but I'm wondering if this license really is GPL3? Because it's like a modified version of it - "GPL3 with a condition". From there, that possibly non-GPL3 license says that you can "use" the software, but not redistribute it.
But anyway it sounds like he needs to decide what he wants, and that's probably a non-open source license, if he doesn't want commercial use.
I think that's a little too reductive—foo.txt wasn't a real app.
Nonetheless, I agree with your broad point: that if somebody can use it under the GPL, they can redistribute it and then all those downstream users can use it under the GPL.
But I disagree there is anything to fix. It's copyleft FOSS but businesses are encouraged to buy a license. Everybody wins.
No, an extra restriction ("For open-source use") is added on top of the GPLv3 license, which violates the license, actually (see §7):
> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
It's better to license under the stricter AGPLv3 and not put any extra conditions.
keepamovin doesn't have or need a licence at all (GPL or otherwise) so can't be violating it. He is distributing his program by virtue of being the author/copyright holder, not by virtue of owning a (GPL) licence for it. He doesn't need a distribution licence (from himself).
In LICENSE.MD, he declares that I (for example) may take a copy of his program provided I choose one of the licences he is willing to offer me. One of the choices is known as the GPL. Let's say I choose that. Now he's given me a copy of the program and granted me an unmodified, unrestricted GPL licence to use and distribute it. Let's write the terms down in a file called licence.gpl. (This is just a copy of the GPL itself.) I don't hold the program's copyright. I don't have a licence to distribute the program further under his LICENSE.md but I do now own a licence to use/distribute my copy of it as described in the licence he's granted me, licence.gpl.
My distribution licence (licence.gpl) doesn't allow me to add extra restrictions when distributing. So people I distribute to under the terms of my licence.gpl will automatically be granted a GPL licence by keepamovin (not me) to distribute further.
keepamovin as the author and perpetual sole copyright holder is different from me and people I distribute his program to, who are all mere licencees never copyright holders. We all hold licences he has granted to us directly and individually. (We don't grant licences to each other, having no right to do so. The GPL allows me to distribute my copy of the program to you at which point keepamovin will automatically give you a licence. (A licence is more abstract than a licence file.))
All distributions rooted in my copy should probably make clear that they are under licence.gpl not LICENSES.md. But that's something for any program offered under a choice of licences to solve.
The copy of the program at the site above is offered by keepamovin under an open source licence (GPL) and also other licences. The site thus does have an open source offering of the program. So it's true that "BrowserBox Pro goes open-source".
(Just as a licence is more abstract than a licence file, a program here is more abstract than a copy of a program. A person's giving a program to another person means ownership has transferred. So I was careful to write "copy of the program" above, as none of this distribution/redistribution involves transferring ownership of the program, which abstract work remains forever only keepamovin's.)
Fair enough, I stand corrected. Worth noting that differences over interpeting the relevant provisions of GPL led to a lawsuit and the court didn’t rule in favour of the side that relied on these provisions: https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/02/court_neo4j_ruling/
The GPL is pre-web so has a bug allowing web programmers to use a GPL'ed program in their web service without having to give their users the web service's source code. The AGPL fixes that bug so that such web programmers will need to give their users the web service's source code. Therefore the AGPL constrains licensees more and frees their users more.
For open-source use
If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3.
For non-commercial use
You can use BrowserBox Pro for free for non-commercial use cases.
This means government and public institutions, non-profits, private researchers and individuals are covered by this protection when their use is done without any anticipation of commercial application. This is provided under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.
Well, this isn't exactly dual license, but the presence of GPLv3 comprehensively nullifies Polyform, so it is FOSS. IANAL.
A government, non-profit or security researcher (or institute, for instance) could use it to build their own proprietary code that is not under GPL, but that uses BrowserBox Pro.
The OSI's definition is not like a heavenly authority. It's not a trademark, so I can call something "open source" even if I put it in the license file that you aren't allowed to use it if you are a red panda. (which is usage discrimination)
What OSI says and what I am allowed to call open source are not the same things.