Hello Friends,

I am currently designing a mail server like zentyal that is used with a license. The license can be purchased for a fee depending on the users once the mail system is ready to use.

What my main question is, despite that fact that i have used open source components such as postfix,dovecot and mysql. Once i am done building this system, would it be okay to use the licensing system as outlined above ? Would it be fine to sell the software (i.e. people buy a license depending on the number of mailboxes required)?

Thanks and Regards,
K

In My Humble Opinion (I'm Not A Lawyer) yes it would. Because you're not selling bare components but "an integrated Suite of components". Like with your other thread: check what others do. And I wouldn't aim for per-seat licenses (unless you have a specialist high performance kit large parties will want to have) but charge for enterprise customer support (lots of companies do that) or plugins that solve specific integration problems (*cough* Exchange) or sell your services as "service integration consultant" if you're really good?..

unSpawn Thanks for the reply. Highly appreciate it. Yes i would basically be selling an integrated suite of components. i was aiming for per seat licenses are many other vendors offer. for example iredmail has a charge to use their "pro" dash which has more functionality in comparison to the "free" one. There is also another company in india called netcore, they provide mail servers with licenses. Please check the attached screenshot for the actual license and what it looks like, that is what i am aiming to do. Also would it be fine to use postfix admin as a dash to add domains etc and then i can create a php based website that can make the overall administration easy.

Thanks once again for the reply that has been provided.

PS: The screenshot shows the license, its a unix mail server (courier e.t.c) with max 300 users allowed (how this was implemented is still baffling me).

"Also not a lawyer, but ..." this also seems okay to me. You are, fundamentally, offering a service product: "here's a complete ready-to-go mail server and lots of other good things."

Of course you built it using a foundation of off-the-shelf software components which are publicly licensed. But then, you've added your own "goodness" to it: administration software and functional software of your own devising. What you are selling, then, is your "value added." For a fee, I get the product of your (ongoing) labors, for an amortized share of the total expense of "keeping you in business."

You are, furthermore, (wisely ...) proposing to do this under a business model which calls for a revenue stream, which makes it much more likely that you'll be in business for many years to come. (Which is also an assurance that I need, if I've become your customer ...)

Think. Be bold. Make your proposition stand out. Offer something unique. (Or prepare to perish in an already overcrowded market.)

Thank you so much for replies. Apart from a good admin panel and easy to use mail server, without a license there would be no other way to make the money! What would you propose for me to do ? if not use per seat licenses ?

Thanks

Due to the licenses of the underlying software, you may have to license any changes, and that includes your added software, as open-source. Do not view this as a problem. Open-source licenses, such as the GPL, do not prohibit sale of GPL'ed software, but a GPL'ed software package must stay GPL'ed, no matter what it's used in. After all, Red Hat sells open-source software.

How do i go about licensing the changes? i.e. what is the process? thanks

You just essentially say in your code and your webpage and wherever else that your software is GPL, whatever version fits your upstream software. You may have to read the various licenses and see what's compatible with all of them. You might also talk to a lawyer, or you might have license violation on your hands. I don't see a reason why you couldn't sell your software, though.

Well, here's the thing:

The legal principle at work here is that, say, "MySQL" has been developed over time by literally thousands of people (and their companies or employers), in a development model that would be better called, "collaborative development." When you use MySQL in your product, you are leveraging that effort ... as those people and companies intended for you to be able to do. You are using software that is worth literally billions of dollars without paying for it ... as its developers intended for you to be able to do!

But, there is one important string attached: you cannot "add a little 'proprietary something' to MySQL, and then, on that basis, 'fork it' into something that you now claim to have exclusive proprietary rights to. Instead, you must provide your modification to MySQL (say ...) back to the community, in effect "becoming another MySQL collaborator, Welcome Aboard."

However, this does not restrict you from leveraging MySQL in a proprietary product offering that you do own and sell. You just have to use a "stock version" of MySQL in it ... or, as aforesaid, you must share your modification. Meanwhile, everything that you wrote on your own, apart from the open-source products that you used, belongs to you. (Just as a company's website "belongs to them," even if it runs on Apache and uses MySQL.) The "bright-line rule" is clear, bright, and narrow. But, it is wide enough.

The so-called "open source" licenses exist to protect the business value of "all that collaboration," which of course is precisely the reason why people and companies (spend millions if not billions of their own dollars to ...) collaborate. "Many hands make light work." "A rising tide lifts all boats." "But, the work of those hands, and 'all that water,' is extremely valuable." Therefore, the decision to collaborate must be legally enforceable. And, so it is. It is now a matter of decided law.

It is an "open" business model. It is based on "sharing." But it is most-certainly not "free." Instead, it amortizes what would otherwise be a prodigious cost, and thereby enables "everyone" to go much farther than "anyone" could. If you add-value to something that you leverage in your product, you are obligated by law to share "the value that you added to that something."

I don't use the term "OSS." Certainly not "FOSS." ("Nothing's free." And I don't give a damm what 'RMS' says about it.) ... ... Instead, I use: "'collaborative,' or 'cooperative' development." Which I think is a much more accurate way of describing it.