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

["Marius Amado Alves" <amado.alves@netcabo.pt>]

> Maybe we need a term to use for software that is open source but doesn't
> meet the requirements of the owners of the words "Open Source"? What
> about "Sharable Software" or "Sharable Source" - implying that you get
> the source code and that you may share the software but possibly with
> some restrictions.

Several terms have been proposed in OSI and other fora, including
"commercial open source" and "liberal source" I think. "Sharable
software/source" is too close to Microsoft's "shared source". (Please note I
have nothing against Microsoft or shared source or any other Microsoft
practiced business model.)

> I agree with Marius that those who wish to lay claim to the words "Open
> Source" have *a* business model, but not the only possible business
> model...

Nobody legally owns the term yet, and I understand OSI does not intend to do
it.

> ...that wouldn't preclude someone from using the
> words "open" and "source" next to each other in their common English
> meaning to describe the fact that the source code is open and visible to
> the user of the software.

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.