Quoting Miles Fidelman (mfidel...@meetinghouse.net): > There are those who disagree, myself included. (And what makes > Engel Nyst the last word on such matters?)
As I'm sure you are aware, I merely meant that Mr. Nyst expressed my view well enough that it would be redundant effort to write up the same viewpoint twice. > I'm not talking about any restrictions on distributing the software. OSD #6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor Restricting commercial use is the canonical example of discrimination against fields of endeavour. In a large sense, open source was actually a reaction against the sort of 'academic licensing' typified by COPS, pgp after early days, SSH Communications Security Ltd.'s SSH 2.x, and many other codebases that permits gratis use for non-commercial purposes and imposes a mandatory fee for any for-profit usage. You have more than adequate standard solutions already, such as those Engel Nyst described, such as (1) dual-licensing with a copyleft licence and a proprietary one, or (2) licenses such as was used by Aladdin Ghostscript where code is proprietary-only for a set period of time and then becomes open source (or where the last-but-one release becomes open source). If you cannot make your business work with that and need outright proprietary terms for commercial users, then good luck to you, but you're simply not doing open source. I see nothing to discuss, here. Either do open source, or I don't see how you're going to get help from OSI. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
