Subscription/Service Fees - OSI Intent

David Davies ddavies at
Thu Mar 29 02:19:46 UTC 2001

On Thursday, 29 March 2001 4:35 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

-> What we do say is something which I think is very simple: open source
-> has a meaning.  It is probably true that it is harder to make money
-> producing software that is open source than it is producing software
-> which is not open source.  However, that fact does not in 
-> any way mean
-> that we should change the definition of open source.
-> Quite a few people on this list have said that if you want to provide
-> source, along with a license fee, by all means go and do it.  Just
-> don't call it open source.
-> I think that is a very simple position.  I honestly can not 
-> understand
-> why anybody has a problem with it.

That's a great point that everyone can respect.  
But who decides what the definition of Open Source is ?

If that is the meaning of Open Source shouldn't it be spelt out a little
better in the OSD ?
If it is NOT stated clearly in the OSD then the assumption can be made that
this is NOT an issue that the OSD intends to cover.

"Quite a few people on this List" do not necessarily represent the OSI nor
can they (or the OSI really) dictate what is understood by the term Open

It may or may not be the case that a clause obliging a user to pay a license
fee would make a license non-compliant with the OSD.  

David Davies

More information about the License-discuss mailing list