Misunderstanding of the basics?

Ralf Schwoebel puzzler at intradat.com
Mon Jan 15 23:07:51 UTC 2001

Hi Ben,

thanks for the open :) reply...

Ben Tilly wrote:

> My first comment is that we don't need an additional
> license.

Mine would be: we finally need one that works (even in such
small and unimportant countries like Germany)...
> My second comment is that if this meets the open
> source definition then that is a flaw in the
> definition.

Or intented to be like that? I see nowhere the sentence:
"Do not charge money for software under the license XXXPL)

> requirement conflicts with item 7 of the open
> source definition.  (You may not require an
> additional license.)

I do not see a point there, there are a lot of companies
out there, which mix GPL and MPL or like Lutris who
mixes closed source with GPL parts. If you markup these
parts, it's fine.
> My fourth comment is that 3.3 (that the code for
> license keys cannot be deleted and must be
> included in anything that copies from the software)

=> if there is a license key check you are not allowed to
 do that with GPL either... but GPL is so weak that it is
 not even mentioned...

> may or may not meet item 3 of the open source
> definition (derived works) but to the extent it
> does shows a flaw in the wording of that section.

Definitly not, the license GARANTEES the openess of the source
and covers more eventuality than the GPL in that part.
Seriously: the IPL is capitalism for OpenSource with the
whole philosophy and ideas behind the GPL. 

I just got the feeling that everybody is afraid of using that
ugly word "money" in combination with the word "OpenSource".

If you use the IPL, and we will encourage everybody to, you
can or you can't charge license fees for that. If you do, you are
a "classical" software company that delivers the source with the
application, if you do not, you are an real OpenSource company. 

> My fifth comment is that section 5.2 (requiring
> fees from anyone doing modification and support
> for third parties) is particuarly awful, and IMO
> violates sections 5 and 6 of the open source
> definition.

That is again not true, because the license fee could be
ZERO and then it is like you want it... GPL comes from the
other end and now has problems to reach the capitalism level.

> software produced under this license.  I suspect
> from your license that you are unclear on what
> this whole open-source thing is.

On the contrary, I think we are involved for a very long time,
invested a lot of money into a lot of projects (against senseless
US patent laws in Europe, e.g.) and we are serious and OPEN with
our opinion that somebody has to pay the developers.

It is obvious that this "consulting, training & support" approach
for software companies is not working and that this damn question
"How to earn money" with Open Source can not be answered by 
hardware vendors who do a lot of cultural sponsoring to abuse
the word for their value on the stock market. 

We spent a lot of time to enable companies to survive in that field
by finally paying the developers. That is the whole background.
Even LI is thinking about that with the new fund, but do you think
we can uphold that hobbiest approach and convice ORACLE to open
the source for their DB?

best regards,
Ralf "puzzler" Schwoebel
CEO, intraDAT international inc.
11250 Roger Bacon Drive (#3)
Reston, VA 20190
Tel.: 703 796 0000

More information about the License-discuss mailing list