Subject: Re: Licensing Model: open downstream apps or proprietary license
From: Mitchell Baker <>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:21:00 -0800


The  goals are to be a broadly adopted, high-quality PIM on all 
platforms, and to ensure that Chandler is always available on an open 
source basis to those who want it.  We also hope to generate a piece of 
the funding that will be necessary to make Chandler development 
self-sufficient.  OSAF is a non-profit organization, so there is no 
"return on investment" goal.  But we do need a way to sustain ourselves.

Your point that a database is much more likely to be distributed as part 
of a larger application is very well taken.  The potential revenue for 
Chandler may be much smaller since it is intended as a useful 
application in and of itself.  On the other hand, we're not looking for 
big profits, only self-sufficiency.  I am acutely interested in any 
ideas for a different focus which you might have. 


Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

>Mitchell Baker <> writes:
>>The Open Source Applications Foundation (
>>is planning the 0.1 release of Chandler (a personal information
>>manager) shortly, hopefully by the end of April.  OSAF's plan of
>>record for licensing is to follow the model used by MySQL:  recipients
>>must either (a) make their entire application available under the GPL
>>or other approved open source license, or (b) get a commercial license
>>from OSAF.  I'm very interested in the thinking of this group about
>>this model.  The plan is reasonably firm but not set in stone, so I'd
>>appreciate hearing about potential pitfalls as well as benefits.
>I think the discussion might be more focused if you say what your
>goals are.  Then we can compare the licensing plan to those goals.
>If your goal is to be the dominant PIM on free software platforms,
>then copying MySQL's licensing seems reasonable.
>It's worth noting that MySQL is only mildly useful by itself, and is
>normally part of a larger application.  I would have thought that a
>PIM would be quite useful by itself, and would not normally be part of
>a larger application.  So focusing on forcing people to release their
>entire application may miss the point.  Or, more likely, I have missed
>the point.

license-discuss archive is at