ORD-2.2
An early-stage startup combining it with other licences, under ORD 2.2
Funded or bootstrapped, under the threshold, shipping a commercial product. Mixing the Work with GPL, Apache, MIT, or proprietary code. This resolves to the Root tier.
Tier
Owed
Nothing. No fee, no report, no filing.
Sections in play
1.7, 2.1, 2.2, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1
Who and what
The situation being resolved.
Actor
An early-stage startup
Funded or bootstrapped, under the threshold, shipping a commercial product.
under 2M USD
Situation
Combining it with other licences
Mixing the Work with GPL, Apache, MIT, or proprietary code.
Rulings
3 questions resolved against the text.
Which tier applies?
Root. Funded or bootstrapped, under the threshold, shipping a commercial product. Below $20,000,000 in trailing revenue, or within an exempt category, no Canopy royalty applies. Sections 4, 6, 8, and 10 still bind every Licensee.
Sections 1.7, 2.1, 2.2
Is anything owed?
Nothing. No fee, no report, no filing.
Sections 2.1
Can this be combined with copyleft?
Not with GPL or AGPL for a combined derivative work. Those licences forbid additional restrictions, and the royalty, Compute clause, and competing-offering restriction are additional restrictions. There is no automatic conversion that makes this disappear for current releases.
Sections 5.1, 6.1, 7.1
Cautions
What this situation gets wrong most often.
Revenue is measured across entities under common control, per Section 1.4. A parent company above the threshold makes its subsidiary a Canopy Licensee regardless of that subsidiary's own turnover.
Section 8.3 of ORD requires a withdrawal of consent to propagate to any derivative you have distributed. Whether that is operationally achievable at depth is a published open question.
Same actor
Other situations for this party.
Non-normative. Where this and the licence text disagree, the licence text applies.