[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A different model to consider that might be compatible would be to offer support contracts for your software.
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?
This can include customisations to the software, and even private customisations particular to their needs.
The GPL says source must be distributed to the users... however, if you create a customisation that is to be distributed to only one particular user of the software, that would mean that the source for that customisation need only be distributed to them, not globally. This satisfies the goal that the user retains control of their destiny... while retaining the ability of the maker of the software to make a living.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the GPL that prevents a software developer from negotiating a private license with particular terms for a particular user of their software that includes the exchange of money.
Of course, it may be that there is a reason why this model wouldn't be able to be considered open source either... if anyone else has any thoughts on the issue, I'm all ears.While I wouldn't say it's 'bad', it wouldn't be considered Open Source.
Regards,
Jack
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *
* http://consultron.ca irc.ecomstation.ca *
* Laval Qu�bec Canada news://news.consultron.ca *
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
