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.
The license for the project is not GPLv3 but if my project is GPLv3 then the non-GPLv3 license for the project grants me a GPLv3 license if I include it.
Which shows the problem with this specific license in a single sentence.
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.
> if he wants his license to enforce being paid for commercial use.
Then it wouldn't be open source, so I am not rooting for that.
However, for better or worse, large successful businesses can be built on scaring companies to pay for a commercial proprietary license and/or support, for copyleft open source.
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/
From a quick glance, that lawsuit seems qualitatively different. It's about a hybrid licence that I'll call AGPLCCL here. One side thought it therefore wasn't an internally consistent licence and the court ruled that it was.
keepamovin is offering to grant me an unadulterated (i.e. non-hybrid) GPL licence to use/distribute my copy of his program. I'm treating as axiomatic that the unadulterated GPL is an internally consistent and open-source licence.
While you are right that Neo4j license was altered more substantively, @keepamovin still made a rather big restriction by stating that GPLv3-licensed BrowserBox is only available "For open-source use" (thus it's no longer "unadulterated"). It restricts me from using that software under the terms of GPLv3 without making my system open-source. That's why I suggested AGPLv3 if @keepamovin wants to ensure that applications relying on open-source version of BrowserBox remain open-source.
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.
I don't want to be overly dramatic. Your current license is decent. But the AGPLv3 is better: it fixes what is essentially a loophole in the GPL (the "ASP loophole", as described by the other user here).
From your perspective, you might find it even easier to sell your paid licences to companies and governments, if you use the AGPLv3. There's little downside to switching, because the AGPLv3 is still open source, and has similar compatibility with other open source licenses.
You've already released this under GPLv3, but you can switch going forward.
True. Alright, I think the reasons for us to stick with GPL are not as compelling as I first thought. I've updated my view. We will switch to AGPL. :)
On govs, unfortunately, but I still think it's a benefit: governments can simply use it without purchasing a commercial license or using GPL, under the Polyform Noncommercial. They can definitely purchase support, deployments, and customizations tho.
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.
You may want to reword as "licensed under either GPLv3 or Polyform Non-commercial 1.0 at your option" or some such, like most rust-lang projects do; ex: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup
Then give guidance on why one might choose one license over the other.