IPL as a burden

SamBC sambc at nights.force9.co.uk
Wed Jan 17 11:34:49 UTC 2001

The OSD requires that licenses do not discriminate against a group of
people - it may be pushing it, but this license discriminates against
those unable (or at an even greater push, unwilling) to pay a license


----- Original Message -----
From: "Manfred Schmid" <mschmid at intradat.com>
To: "Ian Lance Taylor" <ian at airs.com>
Cc: "Brian DeSpain" <bdespain at valinux.com>; "Mark Koek" <mark at koek.net>;
<license-discuss at opensource.org>; <gregor at hoffleit.de>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: IPL as a burden

> Ian,
> > >
> > > I think, the obligation to pay a license fee is a legal obligation
> > > not bound to any license keys. We could claim fees without any
> > > Even if somebody (maybe us) took out the key algorithm and the
> > > would run without any license keys, we would still be entitled to
> > > fee.
> >
> > That would violate OSD #7: no additional license may be required
> > beyond the open source license itself.
> >
> Sorry, I do net get the point. All we need for claiming license fees
> the IPL itself. If the software has some key algorithm or not. Lets
> assume, we do not use license keys and would leave the rest unchanged.
> Still we would claim fees lthough our legal position in court might be
> weaker, since we do not take "reasonable techniques" to prevent
> fraud. That would not change a single thing from the basic contract
> which says: We provide the software, if you use it, you may be obliged
> to pay license fees.
> I do not want to bore you, but the rationale of OSD #7 reads:
> "7. Distribution of License. (back)
> This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect
> such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement."
> We do not intend to make the source available to the public under IPL
> and close it with the same License by any means.
> > > OSD criteria number 3 does not say: "Each and every line of any
> > > published under an Open Source License must be changeable, if it
> > > relevant for technical progress or not".
> >
> > You're right, it's not stated.  However, it is implied.  The
> > does not say ``must allow modifications and derived works, but the
> > license may retrict modifications in certain areas.''  It says that
> > the license ``must allow modifications and derived works.''  If you
> > prohibit certain sorts of modifications, then you violate the
> > guideline.
> >
> > Remember that the OSD is not a program, and it is not a legal
> > document.  It is a set of guidelines written for humans.
> >
> We propose a simple deal:
> VShop3 will be made available in Source Code under IPL
> We give you (see gnu.org)
> - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
> (freedom 1).
> - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> (freedom 2).
> - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
> the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
> We will be happy to include any improvements. In contrast to standard
> proceedings, we are ready to pay for the work poured in.
> Freedom #0 may make our price list apply. But freedom is not about the
> price. Anyway, IPL states that it is even free of charge when you use
> for your own purposes etc. (privately or publicly).
> Concerning Freedom #3 we are asking not to claim a removal of license
> information as an improvement.
> I am well aware that we all are (supposedly) not lawyers. So lets not
> argue about the wording or the interpretation of some clauses. In my
> opinion, two questions have to be answered:
> - May we charge license fees for an Open Source Product?
> - May we take reasonable provisions for a legal defending of the Terms
> and Conditions of the license?
> We do not want to start any religious wars or piss somebody off. We
> want to take commercial Open Source Development one step further.
> We honestly think that the combination IPL / Developer Program takes
> spirit of the the Open Source Movement and adds an economic model,
> is easy to understand.
> Manfred
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> intraDAT AG
> Wilhelm-Leuschner-Strasse 7 u. 9-11
> D - 60329 Frankfurt a. M., Germany
> Tel.: +49-(0)69-25629-0
> Fax:  +49-(0)69-25629-256
> http://www.intradat.com
> -----------------------------------------

More information about the License-discuss mailing list