From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,18b00985106487ae X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-29 06:02:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <40682C5B.3070400@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) References: <83I9c.25796$w54.167855@attbi_s01> <40681380.4080901@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:02:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.0.138 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1080568934 209.165.0.138 (Mon, 29 Mar 2004 06:02:14 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 06:02:14 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6650 Date: 2004-03-29T14:02:14+00:00 List-Id: 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 ======================================================================