IPL as a burden

[Mark Koek]

Ralf Schwoebel wrote:

[...]

> Now we have 2001 and the idea of Open Source needs a kick, because
> we need applications now and everybody thinks its cooler to work
> on an operating system, not an application.

It is my perception that the majority of Open Source/Free Software
hackers work on applications rather than operating systems. You might
want to take a look at koffice.kde.org, mozilla.org. gimp.org,
sendmail.org, apache.org, abisource.com, etc. etc.

> We see no other possibility than enabling people to charge money for
> sources without violating the basics of OpenSource:

There is nothing in "the basics of OpenSource" that stands in the way of
people asking money for their software.

> Anyone is allowed to use the software, everybody has access to
> the sources, etc. pp.

Those are only 2 of the 4 basic freedoms.
There is also the freedom to redistribute copies, as well as the freedom
to improve the program and release your improvements to the public.

Your license violates those freedoms.

> This money goes to the developers and they can pay their bills.
> 
> And by the way:
> Our license is approved by a very good and accepted lawyer in
> Washington DC (some senators and HUGE software vendors agree to that)
> and is suitable for the Virginia law, since software licenses have to
> fit the state laws, not the federal law in the US.

Let's not start about that Virginia law... :-)

While I believe that you are well-intentioned, I think you are proposing
a very wrong solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

In other words, fixing "problems" with Open Source / Free Software by
making the software only half-free is not the way to go.


Mark