Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:
Requiring a fee for use is certainly a restriction. It's open source if you charge someone a fee, but they can pass it on without anyone having to pay anyone anything - but if such second-hand recipients have to pay the original licensor money, it's not Open Source - by the letter and spirit of the definition.
I see. But the SDC philosophy is sort of the other way around. Nobody charges upstream in the distribution. Only when revenues are generated downstream, the shares go back up to every author. And also only then are the shares negotiated. In my perception this model is not against the spirit of open source--and probably not even against the letter.
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
