> 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?
I believe that would be discrimination against users which is against the OSD. However, the OSD doesn't prevent a company from making money from their software. > 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? > While I wouldn't say it's 'bad', it wouldn't be considered Open Source. Jason Cox -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
