IPL as a burden

[kmself at ix.netcom.com]

on Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 06:05:52PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor (ian at airs.com) wrote:

> I'm sorry, I was thinking that you were talking about using an open
> source license, and then claiming license fees on top of that.  Now I
> understand that you were just continuing your claim that requiring
> license fees was compatible with open source.  That's interesting; I
> don't see a clear statement in the OSD that recipients of a program be
> permitted to run it.
> 
> Nevertheless, if the recipient of an open source program can not run
> it without an additional license, where the license itself is the only
> obstacle (that is, no other software is required, just the license
> itself), I feel certain that that program is not actually open source.

I believe OSD section 7 may cover that:

    7. Distribution of License.

    The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
    program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
    additional license by those parties.

...in which case, the requirement for an additional runtime license by
the initial licensee would be incompatible with 7.  In other words:  all
rights associate with copying, modification, distribution, *or use* of
the program must be granted in the OSD-conformant license.

Still, it's interesting that this is an imputed, not an explicit,
property of the OSD.  Possible loophole?

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010115/9a96f458/attachment.sig>