Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs)

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

In my mind, "open source" ought to imply that if I acquire the rights to 
use some software, that I also acquire the source code that goes with 
it. I don't think it ought to mean that a) I pay no money for the 
software, b) I may not be restricted from giving it away to others or c) 
I may not be restricted from reselling the software. I can easily see 
reasons I would a) be willing to pay for software, b) agree not to pass 
along copies to others or c) agree not to resell the software in some 
manner.

If I buy software from some small company I may want source to protect 
me in the event that they go out of business, or can't/won't make 
changes I think I need, or I may simply need source because I'm 
incorporating it in a larger work. Why can't it be "Open Source(non-tm)" 
if you sell me a site license for your software and include the source 
code? The important condition here is that I've got "Open" (visible, 
accessible, midifiable, extensible) "Source" (high-level language, 
human-readable, modifiable, recompilable, original design material.)

That I paid you money for it probably implies you shouldn't call it 
"Free(beer)" software. That I can't give copies of it away to others 
probably implies you shouldn't call it "Sharable" software. That I can't 
sell your work to others without some separate deal simply means you 
have not given up ownership of your intellectual property to me - I 
don't know if there is a word to describe that kind of software but 
perhaps there ought to be. "Resellable"? But in my mind, "Open Source" 
ought to imply that I get the source code and can make use of it within 
my organization.

If someone wants to insist that "Open Source(tm)" must have some 
specific meaning beyond what one might infer from what the English 
language definitions of the words might imply, then I think that must be 
done in the context of a specific license that grants specific rights - 
and ought to come with some form of the "(tm)" qualifier. Otherwise, 
people (like me) are going to take the words to mean what they 
customarily mean in English and subject it to our own interpretations & use.

MDC

Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> 
> That's what I and others do. I don't want a new term. Reasons include my
> believe that SDC Conditions breaching clause 6 of the OSD is a technicality
> that will be surpassed eventually by rewording the Conditions (or the OSD),
> for example by focusing on commercial use and then *un*restricting
> non-commercial use. In sum I believe we don't need a new term because
> commercial open source is simply open source i.e. requiring commercial use
> to cut a special deal is completely orthogonal to the open source main
> tenets. The only problem is that current licenses e.g. GPL are badly phrased
> and *unintendly* make selling open source *software* (not support or mugs)
> unpractical. Or e.g. SDC Conditions are badly phrased and breach clause 6.
> Note selling open source software is a possibility stated in open source /
> free software commentary texts. Even the famous "free speech, not free beer"
> saying encompasses this possibility. Curiously enough the very rationale for
> clause 6 is also about commercial use. So it's simply a legal cunundrum that
> I believe the open source community will solve enventually.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat.
     Its the FAT that makes you look fat."

         --  Al Bundy

======================================================================