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.
That sounds much more
like the Aladdin Free Public License...
I'll check. Thanks.
--
tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly
that the vast majority of speakers won't follow the suggestion.
Actually, it's a small minority of speakers who won't follow the
suggestion. Their life is made more complicated by their choice...
Well, we don't really
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.
Please read:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Note in particular:
Thus,
Isn't there a procedure to request revoking patents?
Shouldn't the FOSS community unite to file such requests against stupid
patents?
Or do the the antipatent provisions of certain FOSS licenses completely
take care of this?
Thanks.
--
license-discuss archive is at
It seems to me that should be enough prior art to kill this patent.
Clearly there is. But is this fact sufficient to protect someone
(re)deploying the mechanism? Or must the patent be revoked in some way
prior to that? I mean, suppose I deploy the mechanism and IBM puts me in
court. Can the
Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote:
... My point was: provide, license, seem to equate in practice (in the
case of open source)
... they mean entirely different things. Let me
illustrate.
The author gives me a copy of the software...
Under no license
Kindly tell what point you feel I'm trying to evade.
That your SDC licence plainly is proprietary.
The SDC Conditions v. 2 breach exactly clause 6 of the OSD (*). If
proprietary is the right term to describe (informally) a 9/10 open
source license, then OK, the SDC Conditions v. 2 are
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 spirit of Open Source is to allow the downstream distributors to
distribute however they like, without restriction. *Any* restriction.
Why are the other conditions e.g. the requirement to distribute under
the same license (GPL) not considered restrictions?
--
license-discuss archive is at
The intent of OSD (it seems to me) has always been to describe via a few
easily-grasped practical guidelines the underlying core concept of open
source -- loosely speaking, access to source code with the perpetual
right to freely use, redistribute, or fork the codebase (or create
derivative works
Requiring royalties for use of the software after lawful
aquisition is probably not even possible legally...
In that case it is indeed an unsurmountable problem. But in my opinion
still merely technical. I don't see it hurting any spirit. On the
contrary, to me it's very clear that rewarding the
Ian, you've been most helpful, and it's a pity you thing I'm trolling
now. My point was: provide, license, seem to equate in practice (in the
case of open source). You have not contested this. But it's ok. I'm not
trolling, but I'm not making a big issue of it either. Let it be.
--
You might want to consider a proper dual license rather than your semi-open
license.
This is one thing we're considering, yes.
The AFPL which is not an OSI-certified license might fit the bill for
the open part: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/cvs/Public.htm, since it
limits commercial use. On
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I agree with the point that the creative spark is not communitarian. My
point -- if we are to use Eric Raymond's book as an example (see Raymond's
busness model 8 Free the Software, Sell the Brand) -- is that dual
licensing IS an authentic open source model.
This
In our case the free evaluation copy is the public NetBSD sources,
although we support a range of additional hardware which we have not
(yet) contributed back. We don't normally give out evaluation copies,
although we would probably do it if a prospective customer required it
to complete a sale.
Ok, since you bit the academic discussion, here it goes.
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
If done appropriately, a comparison between 2 software programs that are
similar in most respects - - except one distributed as a proprietary
product (without antitrust violations, i.e., legally) and the other
Your first criticism was that it was not possible to sell open source
software because somebody could undercut you. Now your criticism is
that what we are selling is not publically available except through us
(or our customers if they choose to distribute it). I presume that
you see the shifting
You started out talking about open source software. There is
absolutely nothing in the definition of open source software which
requires it to be on an FTP site somewhere for public download. Open
source software which is not publically available is still fully open
source.
I think the open
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
Though you protest that you are not against open source, I think your words
betray that protestation; certainly, arguing that those who support or
develop open source software never sell open source directly, there is
always some 'trick' - - is not exactly a
Why dual licensing should be connected to *closed* source?
You find many examples, such as Trolltech or MySQL, proposing such
dual-licensing schemes. Not bcause customers WANT closed source, but
simply because they also want to make internal develpment or internal
use which does not fit the GPL
Great information about the Yacc++ business, Chris. Yes, I'm sure it
helps. But I'll have to digest it carefully. I'll say something
eventually. Thanks a lot.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Sorry, but a word was missing in my sentence. you should read:
Not because customers WANT closed source, but simply because the same
customers also want to make internal development or internal use
which does not fit the GPL or other Open Source license.
No difference. I read they as the same
Nice case. Of course this happens only because the GPL is viral.
You know, you might want to save the polemics for a crowd that's less
experienced in these matters. With the possible exception of Ken Brown,
nobody here's likely to be impressed. ;-
No troll. I just said that to link to a previous
Red Hat sells a *closed* configuration. And mainly support (Red Hat
Enterprise etc.) Not the open software (Fedora).
There is, as far as I can tell, nothing the least bit proprietary in the
software contents of any of the RHEL 3.0 variants
You're right and I was wrong on this point. I forgot
It is clear to me that OSD #6 does not prohibit direct sale of the
software. I've never heard anybody seriously claim otherwise.
It's another thing. By clause 6, you must either sell to all recipients,
or give away to all recipients. I think this makes software sale
incompatible with
Certainly neither the GPL nor the BSD license prohibit sale of the
software.
Then they should stop saying because this software is provided free
of charge...
Neither license says that.
Duh?
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE...
(GPL)
--
license-discuss archive is at
You said provided free of charge.
The GPL says licensed free of charge.
See the difference?
Not really, but duh to myself. I should know better. Maybe it will come
to me in my sleep. Thanks.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Thanks all for having putting up with this blockhead. I think I advanced
a bit. I make a fool of myself here and there. I only hope I'm a fool on
a hill. My vision is: free the software, but every author gets paid his
share when the software generates revenue. I try to juggle the license
terms
You said provided free of charge.
The GPL says licensed free of charge.
See the difference?
Not really, but duh to myself. I should know better. Maybe it will come
to me in my sleep. Thanks. (Myself)
It didn't come in my sleep. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. If the
disclaimer were for
Great reply, Ian, thanks.
Why should people give away copies of it? What would they gain by
doing that? In fact, they would lose: they would spend money to get
software, and then they would give it to their competitors for free.
Certainly some altruistic individual might pay for the software and
open source software can be sold successfully
through a dual licensing model.
For the 1th time, dual-licensing is not selling open
source software. You're selling a closed license. You're relying on the
market wanting closed. You're exploiting a need for the contrary of open
My employer sells commercial open source software.
It fully complies with the OSD--in fact, it is under the BSD license.
Do you really sell the software (not support, not buy-out)?
How have you been keeping people from giving copies of it away gratis
(hence invalidating your business)?
--
With BSD and GPL, it is possible to *sell* software.
That is not what I asked.
How have you been keeping people from giving copies of it away gratis
(hence invalidating your business)?
Probably they provide support free of cost if the customer buys the
software from them. But that is not
You *can* sell free software.
Theoretically yes, practically no.
`Can you sell free software' is not the same as `how long can you sell
free software'. First is an issue of license terms. Second question
is one of business policy.
So?
So, if you properly frame your question, I would have
I know about all open source business models around.
But the one at hand is selling the software.
And that is not feasible.
And you just have to point out one successful case to prove me wrong.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
I'm aware of the other replies (and FWIW I agree with them), and I can
tell you (the OP) like short, so I'll be really short here, except for
point 4, where I'll make a connection to commercial open source.
1. Doesn't the GPL prohibit un-GPL'ing the code? Or does dual licensing rely on
having
No, it's fundamentally not open source at all.
It may be a fine and useful licence for particular objectives, but
please don't call it open source, as it's not that.
Altough all discussions about the use of the term open source always
end in OSI does not own it, it's alright to use it to mean
Rick Moen (and others) suggest the term open source be used only as
defined by OSI. Maybe that would be a good thing, and as I said and
pointed out (and Rick wasn't listening) I never say just open source
tout court to mean something different, but life has shown repeatedly
that the vast
Marius Amado Alves wrote:
The LGPL fits these requirements.
Unfortunately, it doesn't!
It *does* fit your stated requirements 1 and 2. However from you answer you
must have other requirements in mind.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
The LGPL fits these requirements.
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Sandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 7:48 PM
Subject: looking for a license
Hello,
I'm looking for an OSI-approved open-source license to use for a library.
There are so many
On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 23:54, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
Actually, what limits your hability to distribute your application
is not MySQL AB, but the GPL itself.
Indeed. It's the 'viral' nature of GPL that makes dual licencing
economically feasible. See my essay Open Source Business Found
Parasitic
On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 16:19, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
No, it's the FUD that the GPL is 'viral' and therefore must
be avoided in business environments.
No. Read my paper.
It is very well possible
to combine GPL-licensed software with proprietary applications.
You just have to make the right
Viral, fortifying, both have unwarranted connotations (in opposing
directions). What about: black hole?
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 12:58, Staff di Filosofiateoretica.it wrote:
...
we want also to grant everyone for the right economical profits whenever an
application based on the core of the platform will be used for any not-free
use...
This breaches clause 6 of the OSD. See also
44 matches
Mail list logo
