Quoting Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Quoting David Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > I've listened to both sides of the argument. One side says "you can't > > make any money selling Open Source Software" and the other side says > > "yes you can make lots of money selling Open Source Software." Well, > > BOTH sides are chowderheads! > > Entirely possible if not likely -- but you've just changed the subject.
Not really. Actually I found David's post one of the most educative for me, the original poster (of both threads). I think he captured the essence of my concerns. > The original gentleman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) claimed that "Most open source > licenses, including GPL, simply forbid selling the software", I stand corrected on the letter, although not in the principle. "Forbid" is in fact the wrong word. I'll change to "impeed" or something. > and that > the OSD's "no discrimination against fields of endeavour" clause > requires businesses to "either sell to all recipients... or give away to > all [covered software]". > > Speaking for myself, I merely pointed out that these statements are > objectively wrong, and suggested that he read more carefully. This claim I keep. I've seen no disproof of it. > Did I correctly understand that he also posted some sort of draft > licence, and suggested that the OSD be altered to accomodate it? Yes. > Well, > at least the licence inclusion is a step forward from the last guy. That was the idea :-) * * * I should say that my stand now is to accept hapilly not being Open Source as per the definition. I'll still try to have a business model and license that conciliates aspects of open source and charging money for commercial use. Thanks, --MAA ----------------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through NIAAD: http://www.niaad.liacc.up.pt/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
