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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable 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 05:10:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in2p3.fr!nnx.oleane.net!oleane!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Marius Amado Alves" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Licensing issues (Was: [Announce] Mneson : persistent untyped graphs) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:08:22 +0100 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <83I9c.25796$w54.167855@attbi_s01> <40681380.4080901@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1080565688 20520 212.85.156.195 (29 Mar 2004 13:08:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:08:08 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2004 13:07:59.0890 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC4EAF20:01C4158E] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6647 Date: 2004-03-29T14:08:22+01:00 > 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.