Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > 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.
It's a matter of simple logic: None of the OSD-approved licences requires even distribution of software, let alone selling or giving away. > I should say that my stand now is to accept hapilly not being Open > Source as per the definition. Well, at the risk of being a bit blunt, if you simply intended all along to write proprietary software, what are you doing _here_? Lobbying for alterations to the OSD to accomodate your business model? Looking for free advertising? I really don't see why it should be the OSI's affair to ensure that your particular type of business venture is profitable. If you're looking for a free-of-charge business-consulting agency or philanthropic foundation: Sorry, this just isn't it. -- Cheers, "My file system's got no nodes!" Rick Moen "How does it shell?" [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
