I held off from posting this yesterday to see if any additional information would be released. Six Apart (the company that created Movable Type, the blogging software I use) is launching a blog hosting company called TypePad on May 1.
This is not surprising for several reasons all of which point back to their licensing scheme:
Movable Type is 'free' for non-commercial use and they stress this many times on their website, especially in terms of other webhosting providers who offer to install Movable Type for others. Prior to Wednesday's news release, a colleague of mine requested (via an email to Six Apart) information regarding the legality of their license, it was not answered (this was weeks ago). Another hosting service also contacted Six Apart several months ago and was told to refrain from installing the Movable Type software for clients, without a justification.
While I myself am no lawyer (though I did belong to the Pre-law society) Six Apart's claim would be equivalent to any other software firm mandating the same condition, which is preposterous. I will agree that the software is the "property" of Six Apart (I won't delve into the 'intellectual property' issue here), however what is not theirs to control is how someone goes about installing it.
Below is a copy of the End User License Agreement for Movable Type.
1. Conditions of Use. Licensor grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the Software to manage and update your website. You may not redistribute the Software without Licensor's prior written consent. Although you may modify or create derivative copies of the Software for your own use, you may not distribute modified or derivative copies of the Software. You may not, without Licensor's prior written consent (a) charge for any service that uses the Software, (b) charge for copies or modified copies of the Software, or (c) charge for support services associated with the Software. You may not rent, lease, lend, or in any way distribute or transfer any rights in this Agreement or the Software to third parties without Licensor's written approval. All rights not expressly granted to you are retained by Licensor. You may make copies of Software as reasonably necessary for the use authorized above, including as needed for backup and/or archival purposes. No other copies may be made. Each copy must reproduce all copyright and other proprietary rights notices on or in the Software. (emphasis is mine)
The key parts I would like to highlight are (a) & (c). I work for a hosting company and install various patches, fixes, updates and software packages for clients. Some of which is proprietary (like CPanel) and some of which is open-sourced (like Linux and MySQL). None of these companies associated with the various software packages attempt to claim what Six Apart does in parts (a) & (c). The minute a EULA (End User License Agreement) similar to that of Movable Type becomes mandatory on MySQL (for example), is also the day that software dies and/or many lawsuits occur.
Note, I am not mentioning any of this because I wish to take Six Apart to court and prove them wrong, I am mentioning this because it shows just how twisted legalese can be.
Imagine if you will, the entire collection of software you use, whether it be freeware, shareware, time-limited demo's or a product you actually purchased (like Office XP). Among others I have: WinZip, UltraEdit, SmartFTP, WinACE, DeadAIM and Trillian, all of which require someone to download and install. Take a moment to reflect on how you would react if WinZip told users: "You may not, without Licensor's prior written consent (1) charge for any service that uses the Software or (2) charge for support services associated with the Software."
InstallShield, ACDSee, Opera, Netscape, WinRAR, Quicktime, Paint Shop Pro, Jabber - the list is infinite. What if any of the companies mentioned tried to do what Six Apart does?
I even googled those particular EULA passages to see if any company had a EULA similar to Six Apart: the results - negative. Surely Microsoft would have tried that route if they could use the courts to bend OEM's and others for some extra cash. Apple, Novell, Sun, IBM - if such a condition was plausible, one of these large companies would have tried it at one point (and may have unsuccessfully).
Moving along, Six Apart has another revenue stream through commercial licenses, each priced at $150 (I can buy a legitimate copy of Windows for less). Their commercial license isn't much friendlier compared to the non-commercial one either. It essentially says: "Thanks for giving us the money we do appreciate it. Now if you wouldn't mind we need to find commercial-esque sites running Movable Type that didn't pay us and ask their hosting provider to cancel their account."
No, they don't really say that, they do say this however: This gives you license to (a) use one (1) installation of the Software for commercial purposes and (b) charge for support services associated with one (1) installation of the Software.
Even that license fell short in the google search, though I wouldn't doubt that there are similar licenses out there with different wording styles - that clause is a bit more inconsequential than (a) and (c) from above (here are two blog posts discussing Six Apart tactics though).
There you have it, they want their ducats (not that I don't blame them, but there are other easier and friendlier ways at doing so, just ask MySQL AB or Redhat). In the end, all a hosting company has to do to avoid any sort of ramification is simply state: "Do you need assistance installing Movable Type? We can walk you through and show you how it is done. Here are the installation instructions, let us know if you have any difficulties."
Next, hosting companies like Blogomania work out special deals with Six Apart, in which a license costs about 1/5 the normal price (~$30). And Six Apart does not play "fair" as another company, GNS Hosting, was turned down for a similar exchange policy (GNS now installs Cafelog). Yes, it is the sole discretion on the part of Six Apart to decide who can receive discounts, however that case is a moot point as they do not have the legal authority to make the specific demands in their license. If they do have some sort of legal backing, I will personally email each executive at the top 20 software firms and detail this exciting new way they too can wrangle potential and existing customers as well as web host providers (not that it would matter because their business model is nearly dead).
Anyways, I was not at all surprised with this business move. Six Apart has maintained an installation service for some time now, in which they charge $40 to install Movable Type on your server (as you can see, they wanted a monopoly on all aspects of their software, I wouldn't be surprised if they start charging for each use of TrackBack or every time you visit the Forum).
Several months ago Six Apart also announced they would release a Pro version of Movable Type. How this will fit into their TextPad service is not clear at this point, however there is a niche market that pMachine and others have found (Manila) in professional weblogging.
Conclusions
What does this mean for you as a non-Movable Type user? I would file this under 'yet another example of executing a poor business model.' Will they succeed? Yes, but only in the short-term and only for as long as a cheaper, better alternative is not existent. All an enterprising company would need to do is take Cafelog, Pivot or Nucleus and emulate the interface at Blogger.com.
So what does this mean for you as a Movable Type user? That same press release discussing the 'Pro' version also mentioned that they would continue supporting the 'light' version. I do not think they will bail on anyone, especially considering that pMachine has a similar business model (who's license, as out-moded and draconian as it is, is still less twisted as it does not call for an all out war against companies that offer customer support - ie: installation and setup).
For the time being, pMachine, MovableType, BigBlogTool and all the other commercial blogging software will continue to flourish - for many of the same reasons companies like Oracle and Microsoft continue to exist. Their days are numbered however, with the combination of open-source software and unrestrictive licenses (like the BSD or GPL), commercial software will go the way of the Dodo.
Please do not flame my inbox either. I hold no grudge personal or professional against Six Apart. The very fact that I use their software should suggest that I respect it and in fact think it is a great solution. I am merely pointing out observations and explaining the ramifications of certain actions. Lastly, TypePad should not to be confused with TextPad a text editor -- though I'm sure they thought through that already -- confused yet?
Posted by Tim at April 25, 2003 01:37 AM | TrackBackVery interesting thoughts. I'm not sure what to make of your comments. In my previous web development job we considered MT for clients, but figured that our own solutions gave us more control. We also saw that part in the license preventing folks from charging for installation. It is a bit odd.
I'd be interested to know if you find out more about it.
Posted by: Jo at April 25, 2003 10:32 AMTim,
You raise a lot of great points about issues that really suffer from being unclear, not actually evil. The simplest way to understand the intent of the license (and we'll be clarifying the language soon) is that ISPs can't build hosting services out of the software or bundle it with existing hosting plans, and people can't charge to install the software for others. Installation fees are pretty fair, I think, and are a main way that development is supported.
Ben, Mena, and I are all very committed to there being a free version of Movable Type that people can download, install, configure and customize on their own. It's a reflection of the fact that MT was and is a system made by tinkerers and for tinkerers. Meaning, people who like to get in and hack code and play with their server can get in there and do exactly that, without paying a cent.
On the other hand, a company that wants to build a hosting service run entirely on Movable Type can't do that. And a company that wants to charge for installing MT for users can't do that. It seems fair to me.
Six Apart as a company has always been very open. Movable Type itself is open source, though not "free software" in the GPL sense. Protocols like TrackBack, which you've mentioned, have been completely documented, made available in neutral implementations, embraced by other tools, and released under completely free licenses. It's simply grossly unfair and a misrepresentation to say something like, "they wanted a monopoly on all aspects of their software, I wouldn’t be surprised if they start charging for each use of TrackBack".
We absolutely need to do a better job of clarifying the licensing, pricing, and allowed uses of Movable Type. As your links to our recent announcements attest, we've been very busy for a small company. But we will be improving this soon. In the meantime, consider if you think it's really unfair that your hosting customers who want to use Movable Type but don't have the inclination or experience to install it themselves might want to pay to have it installed for them by the people who created it and know it best.
Incidentally, I use TextPad all day nearly every day. The name's somewhat similar to TypePad, yes. I'm pretty sure no one will confuse a desktop text editor with a hosted weblog service.
And honestly, I think your own use of Movable Type proves the value of the product. If, as you say, all one needs to do is provide a cheaper, better product I'd be surprised to find that possible, given that it's got to be better (as your use attests) and it can't be any cheaper than free.
I think your hosting company has benefitted by being able to host people who want to have weblogs. And we benefit by providing software and installation services and support to your users. You get paid for the services you provide to them, and we choose not to get paid, except for one specific service of installing the application. That seems pretty fair to me.
We'll be clarifying the legitimate points you've raised about the language of the license being somewhat vague. In the meantime, I'd love to see you give the product a fair shake.
Posted by: Anil at April 26, 2003 07:12 AMAnil, some great points there.
There is one thing I'd like to say, from my experience of trying to get a testbed of MT installed on my home mandrake server. It's got one of the worst installation procedures I've ever had teh displeasure to cross with. I don't dispute that it is one of the most powerful systems out there for content management, but large aspects of the user experience leave a lot to be desired.
Hopefully I can provide more specific examples in a short while for you.
Posted by: Matt at April 26, 2003 04:14 PMCan't get any cheaper than free... but you can get freer.
Seriously, it sounds like MT's onerous licensing scheme is mostly accidental, but it still scares the hell out of anyone with any legal knowledge at all.
I mean, technically, if you got paid to write any software that someday interacts with a piece of MT (even if you wrote it years before MT existed) you could be seen as in violation under that wording. Fortunately, since a EULA only applies to the "end user", there's no conceivable way you could really enforce those restrictions on a service company anyhow.
Posted by: Jason Ditz at April 28, 2003 01:42 PMI don't know what those people are smoking, that they think they should decide who installs software and who gets paid for installing it.
Another consideration is that, aside from whether it's right or wrong, it's what one of my grandfathers would have described as "peein' agin' the wind". There's simply no way for MT to know if someone has installed MT him/herself or slipped someone else a few bucks to do it (short of someone standing up and shouting it out).
IMO Mr. and Ms. Trott need to decide whether they want MT to be the best and most widely used blogware or whether they'll spend their time, effort and money snooping around trying to keep others from making money installing it.
My sense is they can have one or the other but not both.
Posted by: Kevin at June 25, 2003 12:29 AM