Dear list: The Open Source Definition seems to prevent a license from requiring commercial users to pay the authors of the software a fee (cf. clause 6, and perhaps 1, OSD version 1.9)
Why? Consider a business model with this basis: the software is distributed freely, but if someone makes money using it, then the authors are entitled to a just compensation. Method: the software is distributed under a license that requires that if anyone uses the software in a business then they must pay the authors, thru their representative (the business), a negotiated fee. Is this model 'bad' in any way? Are the stated rationales for clauses 6 and 1 really 'against' it? Every open source commentary text recalls the orthogonally of the commercial and open source aspects. Shouldn't _this_ rationale require a license of the type I propose be possible? Thanks a lot, --MAA (M�rio Amado Alves, researcher with the Univ. Oporto, considering starting a business) ----------------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through NIAAD: http://www.niaad.liacc.up.pt/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
