The Toll Roads of Open Source
angelo.schneider at oomentor.de
Tue Jan 23 15:35:22 UTC 2001
Now you are very polemic:
forebear from referring to software under that licence as "open source",
or it will have a serious public-relations problem.
For it is _very_ obvious that, in fact, you do not intend to produce
open-source software, and never did. Good luck to you.
The term O-P-E-N S-O-U-R-C-E was long n use before the OSI made a
public, and now widly accepted definition of it.
And the former common sence of US, yes there are MANY O-P-E-N
S-O-U-R-C-E developers who still have a common sence on what this is and
this does not meet the definition of the term the OSI brought up simply
because not everyone who believes he does open source is reading and
understanding the definition of the OSI.
You are right that http://www.intradat.com does not deliver "open
source" in the sence as the OSI defines it but they deliever open-source
as this is not a defined term.
And you are mybe right that they do not want to make "open source"
however they have a different understanding and they like truely to make
Manfred: if you distribute a piece of software to a customer A and you
deliever it to a different customer B and both get it under different
conditions for furhter use, even if both can choose the way they get it
and how to use/redistribute it, then it is not open source according to
Lets amke it simple: commercial users should pay, regardless how they
use your software right?
Non commercial users should get it for free if they likre.
Both get the source code if they like.
This is not open source(OSI). Period. Thats what all those writing here
try to explain you. You "discriminate" (not in the german sense, in the
latin sense) between both customers, EXACTLY this is not allowed under
However I agree with you that your way is the only RIGHT way in making
software successfull especialy if you consider the shift from a
producing industrie to a knowledge/information industrie.
You need to invent a new term for your kind of source-included software
Well, my company also works on a similar license. Contributors get a
fair share of the revenues. EVERYBODY get the source code, non
commercial organisations may get the software free of charge, commercial
organisations have to pay. Everybody is encouraged to redistribute:
however if the final user is a commercial one we like to get license
fees and if he is not a commercial one we waive the fees.
If anybody redistributes for a fee we like to get a fair share of those
Manfred: again, no one here likes to piss you, but the point is somebody
defined boiling water is the water which is at 100 degree centigrade on
Your water is only 80 degree centigrade, so you miss that definition.
So either you heat it up or you leave it at 80 degrees but then you can
not call it open source.
Rick Moen wrote:
> > ----------
> > Von: Rick Moen[SMTP:RICK at LINUXMAFIA.COM]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Januar 2001 08:51:04
> > An: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Betreff: Re: The Toll Roads of Open Source
> > Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet.
> begin Manfred Schmid quotation:
> > We see that emotions have gone high.
> I see that you _continue_ declining to address the subject at hand.
> Which is evaluating whether specific licences are OSD-compliant or not.
> Instead, you digress onto business models, alleged deficiencies in the
> OSD, and a whole circus of diversions.
> > We take the freedom to make a final statement concerning our requests.
> [90-line manifesto snipped]
> Farewell! I sincerely hope that your employer has the good sense to
> forebear from referring to software under that licence as "open source",
> or it will have a serious public-relations problem.
> For it is _very_ obvious that, in fact, you do not intend to produce
> open-source software, and never did. Good luck to you.
> Cheers, "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us
> Rick Moen in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so."
> rick at linuxmafia.com -- Artemus Ward (1834-67), U.S. journalist
Please support a software patent free EU, visit
Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Angelo.Schneider at oomentor.de
Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
More information about the License-discuss