IPL as a burden

[Mark Koek]

Ralf Schwoebel wrote:

> After the discussion yesterday, and we might work a bit on our
> license and resubmit it. But the basic idea will stay:

Then I hope your submission will fail - I agree with other posters that
if the OSD does not preclude calling the things you are planning "Open
Source", that means the OSD is seriously flawed.

> License fees for "Open Source" software and a license that
> is covering that widely and explicitly mentions that with the
> approval of the community. We think it is time for such
> a license and we do believe that the IPL is close enough,
> even if some paragraphs caused such a discussion yesterday.
> 
> Profit is necessary and licenses like MozPL, etc. are the
> first step to such a point of view. Even the GPL notes that
> and leaves the door open.

I disagree - the MPL and other such licenses have problems but they
manage to satisfy the basic requirements. They're not great but OK to
use if necessary - not a step in the right direction at all.

And, BTW, the GPL does *not* leave the door open for license fees. It
states that you may ask money for *distribution*, not for use.

Your license allows a scheme where an author spreads his program far and
wide, and then -once users have become dependent on it- starts asking
license fees. Such a scheme is very definitly not compatible with the
spirit of Open Source / Free Software, the way I see it.

The "IPL-concept" is really just shareware-with-source - it's just
completely different from open source.

If you believe this is a good idea then go pursue it (I advise against
it and suggest that instead you take more seriously the real and proven
ways to make money from Open Source - but do it if you must). But please
stop trying to drag Open Source with you.


Mark