AutoMapper commercial version launched

[jbogard]

You can find the all the details on my blog announcement here:

https://www.jimmybogard.com/automapper-and-mediatr-commercial-editions-launch-today/

And the new website has pricing etc:

https://automapper.io

[cit-bmeyer]

Is your intention that other MIT libraries that use this just find another solution? You list "I want to make these libraries free for:... Developers using it in an OSS setting". While the license states "Your right to possess, distribute, develop, and/or compile anything that incorporates, is linked to, or compiled with, any given copy of a Lucky Penny software product is set forth in this Agreement. If the subscription expires, the licenses expire, and Customer may no longer use the product." So at any time you can just decide to invalidate that community license and make that project in violation of the license? Either exhorting them for a fee or forcing them to switch to RPL. More over this specific verbiage seem like we are not even allowed to make libraries that consume AutoMapper, "The Licensed Program(s) may not be used to create frameworks/controls/wrappers or other such products that are intended to be programmatically reused by anyone."

[jbogard]

@cit-bmeyer do you have an example? I have the ability to change the agreement, and plan to, based on feedback. This is an iterative process for me.

@Tasteful I don't think it's much different than bundling any component in your product. If you bundled a commercial reporting library or PDF generator, you'd need to advise customers that they'd need a license if they developed against those libraries too. Personally, I haven't had to deal with this kind of scenario (bundling my OSS in a product) in my consulting work, so I'm happy to work with folks to have it make sense. Not trying to punish anyone here.

[jbogard]

@cit-bmeyer Yes so the provision is customers may no longer use the product. Not that the consequence is "your software blows up". That part doesn't belong in a license agreement but I will put it in a FAQ.

My initial launch didn't have perpetual licenses mainly because it's so much harder to deal with over time, but it's something I'm considering if there's enough interest.

[cit-bmeyer]

4.2a/b/c seems to contradict 4.2.e.4 which addresses redistributing.

4.2.e.3. The Licensed Program(s) may not be used to create frameworks/controls/wrappers or other such
products that are intended to be programmatically reused by anyone.

This clause seems to preclude the type of application Tasteful is creating/selling. Yet you state 'Well I DEFINITELY I need to add all this to a FAQ, but your scenario is absolutely supported. You're allowed to redistribute royalty-free, as long as the end-users aren't also developing using these libraries.'. the only caveat being 'you'd need to advise customers that they'd need a license if they developed against those libraries too.'

6.4 Customer acknowledges and agrees that in the event of the termination of this Agreement, Customer will no longer
have the right to possess the Licensed Assemblies, and subsequently cannot distribute any software code or application
that includes the Licensed Product. For the avoidance of doubt, it is understood and agreed that an improper
redistribution of the Licensed Assemblies or Licensed Products (as incorporated into a Customer product) shall not
under any circumstance permit or excuse any subsequent redistribution. An improper redistribution includes, but is
not limited to, a redistribution that occurs after the expiration or termination of this Agreement, whether due to
Customer’s breach due to unlicensed or under-licensed use of the Licensed Product, or otherwise. Additionally,
Customer acknowledges and agrees that upon termination of this Agreement, Customer will remove all Licensed
Products and Licensed Assemblies from any Customer product or other software that is used internally within
Customer’s organization (including that of its subsidiaries and affiliates).

So it wont blow up but we will get sued for breach of contract?
Having a license that locks in the version, i.e. you can use v15 for life but need to renew for the current version, or being able to buy a perpetual would alleviate some of this.

[jbogard]

4.2a/b/c seems to contradict 4.2.e.4 which addresses redistributing.

4.2 a/b/c are about distributing the licensed product itself, not something built with the product. You can't buy a license then give away the packages and the license key for other folks to develop against.

This clause seems to preclude the type of application Tasteful is creating/selling. Yet you state 'Well I DEFINITELY I need to add all this to a FAQ, but your scenario is absolutely supported. You're allowed to redistribute royalty-free, as long as the end-users aren't also developing using these libraries.'. the only caveat being 'you'd need to advise customers that they'd need a license if they developed against those libraries too.'

4.2.e.3 is referring to selling a wrapper or framework around these libraries. This one is explicitly in there because there were commercial products built around AutoMapper and MediatR that abstracted their functionality but still used AutoMapper/MediatR underneath the covers. I won't share their names but they definitely existed (and no, those commercial product companies never sponsored or contributed).

I am looking at a perpetual license, basically gauging interest and weighing that against how it would work in practice. Today I don't bake anything in the license to say "this is for X.Y.Z version".

[cit-bmeyer]

4.2.b talks about 'transfer, distribute, or sublicense', while 4.2.a/b use the verb 'use'. One can interrupt applications built with your Licensed Products to be using them.

Framework here is very ambiguous (just ask javascript developers). You address 'significant value-added features' and 'products that are directly or indirectly competitive' elsewhere so this seems to target projects outside that scope.