Misunderstanding of the basics?
Ian Lance Taylor
ian at airs.com
Mon Jan 15 17:32:05 UTC 2001
Ralf Schwoebel <puzzler at intradat.com> writes:
> > 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)
As someone who became relatively rich through free software
development, I certainly agree that there is no such sentence.
But if you look at
you will see that there are some sentences which you are ignoring.
Specifically, the license must allow modified and derived works. Your
license does not allow them--it requires the licensing bits to be
> > 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.
I have no idea what you are talking about here? Do you mean the
``mere aggregation'' clause?
> > 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...
If code with a license key check is released under the GPL, I
certainly am allowed to remove or modify the check for the license
key. What makes you believe otherwise?
> I just got the feeling that everybody is afraid of using that
> ugly word "money" in combination with the word "OpenSource".
Hardly. We're just afraid to use the ugly word ``proprietary'' in
combination with the words ``open source.'' You are showing a
proprietary license and calling it open source. You don't get to
redefine words like that.
> 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?
Hey, if you want to say that open source can't work, I may disagree
with you, but you are entitled to your opinion. But if you want to
promulgate a new definition of open source because you believe the
current one can't work, then I'm afraid that I have to disagree.
More information about the License-discuss