In practice, party C can't "do what they want to the OSS." SaaS/cloud offerings are often provided to Party C in such a way that Party C can't really modify them except through a set of Party B-defined configurations. Party C's ability to use the software is tightly circumscribed in such a way that it couldn't violate the original OSS license even if it wanted to because the OSS is bundled into a proprietary offering where any attempt to modify it would result in a loss of support and warranty (and is also probably explicitly forbidden and technically impossible).
If anything, I think the complaint should be framed not in the sense that the current model allows party C to run amok, but in the sense that the current model forbids party C from exercising the rights party A intended to grant all users of its software. <http://katedowninglaw.com> 831-454-8334 On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:18 AM Peter Corless <pe...@scylladb.com> wrote: > There seems to be a lot of buzz these days about licenses in the face of > cloud providers. > > I'd like to ask if anyone has considered, in this group, the concept of a > 'channelized' license? > > Party A: An OSS developer. > Party B: A cloud provider who hosting Party A's OSS, and is is charging > Party C for this. > Party C: A user, using Party A's software, which is hosted on Party B's > cloud. > > Under current licensing, the OSS license is between Party A, and Party B. > Party B really isn't modifying or contributing to Party A's OSS code base. > > Party C, meanwhile, can do whatever they want to the OSS, since they have > no legal license obligation back to Party A. Their access is provided > through Party B. They could, theoretically, violate the license Party A > distributed their software under, since they are just using it. > > Ideally, what *should* be going on is: > > Party A, an OSS developer licenses Party B, who contributes something back > in kind or consideration to Party A for the commercialized utility of the > OSS. > > Party A also provides an OSS license (through the product itself, or > through Party B), to Party C, ensuring Party C abides by whatever OSS > license model Party A wishes to apply. > > I've been searching, but have come up short with any sort of current > license model that is "cloud aware." And, pardon the expression, but this > seems to be a cloud under which the entire industry is slogging at present. > Thoughts? Feedback? > > -Peter Corless. > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
