>>>>I'm sorry, Marius, I'm confused. How can be it open source, and yet >>>>if used commercially, the authors get a cut? >>> >>>The thing is, we don't see how that hurts the basic tenets of the free >>>software philosophy.> ... >I know this, and this is the single 'wrong' thing about free software in >the view on many people (SDC, UUU, Alladin...) Putting the authors out >of the loop is silly and unfair.
It may be "wrong" (silly, unjfair, etc.) but it *is* the definition of both free software and open source. The *intent* is to take the author out of the loop. Once your software is "free" or "open source", you don't "own" it any more. It "belongs" to its users. You are not the first to propose some form of limited sharing, with some amount of ability to return profits to the author when users themselves are making profits. However, each and every time, such ideas have floundered on this basic principle--the principle that the author cannot restrict(*) the end users rights to use and redistribute the software for any purpose once they have obtained a copy. (*Some forms of restriction are allowed if they facilitate the principle of non-restriction, e.g. the GPL requiring that if you distribute a non-human readable form, you must also desribute a human readable form.) The ability to enforce a limited sharing is considered a "monopoly rent". You as the author are inherently a monopoly, as you (perhaps a collective you if the software was written by a group) are "the author" and conceptually no one else can be that. Thus, any ability you have to control the software puts you in the position of a controlling monopoly. If that control prohibits others from using the software without returning something to you, then what those users must return to you is a "monopoly rent". And if that cotrol (either through a monopoly rent) or through some other mechanism prevents some group of users from using (or redistributing to whoever they want) the software after they have obtained it, then it makes the software non-open source. (And the key point is that the users must be able to redistibute the software to anyone, including users who the original author would not give the software to and that those redistributed to users must have equal rights even if the original author would not have given them such rights and also cannot be restricted in their use or redistribution.) If you want to make a profit from selling open source software, you are free to attempt to do so, and there appear to be mechanisms to do so. However, you can't do it through a "monopoly rent" system and call it "open source". The closest one can come to collecting a monopoly rent is finding some way to make oneself the preferred provider of the software and collecting such rents on the "first sale"--that is sometimes called "selling the brand". My company has developed a strategy for doing just that, and we'll see over time whether it is successful. However, we recognize that in doing so, our ability to extract income form the software is only proportional to the extra value we continue to add (or at least that our customers perceive we add). The fact that some form of our software is open source means that there will always be the threat that users who don't perceive the value we add can find a way to get the software for a lower cost than what we charge, so there will always be a downward force on our prices that we will have to compensate for by adding the perceived value. However, we can't add that value through a license clause that requires payment under some conditions. That simply makes the software not "open source". Violating a key part of open source as I tried to explain above. Other forms of limited sharing may be good, right, correct, laudable, etc. However, the definition of open source is that the author is "out of the loop" once the software is obtained by the users and it is the users that have control. No amount of arguing will ever change that. There are very smart people involved in the open source movement and they understand that principle and what it entails and have chosen to accept it. And while you may not think that some other form of limited sharing does not hurt the "free software philosophy", they will never agree, because they consider the end user's rights (even if the end user is the "evil empire") to be paramount. It is a matter of principle, and at some level it defines the free software philosophy--which isn't as much about "sharing" as some people think, as it is about *not being able to restrict* sharing, which is a slightly different thing. Excuse my long-windedness, -Chris ***************************************************************************** Chris Clark Internet : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Compiler Resources, Inc. Web Site : http://world.std.com/~compres 23 Bailey Rd voice : (508) 435-5016 Berlin, MA 01503 USA fax : (978) 838-0263 (24 hours) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
