philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk
Fri Mar 30 00:17:53 UTC 2001
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, SamBC wrote:
> I'm sorry if someone has already said this, or something similar, but
> why can't people who want to distribute source, as they say, but keep a
> financial gain from it, use conditions like:
> 1) On paying the license fee, you have access to the source code - you
> may not distribute it in whole or in part, except illustrative excerpts
> not more then [x] lines long
> 2) You may modify the source code as you wish, and distribute you
> modifications only to other license holders.
> 3) On receiving a modified version of the source code, or any form of
> instructions as to its modification, you may not redistribute them to
> any unlicensed party, but may distribute freely to other license holders
No reason at all. In fact, this sort of "gated community" license may
well be advantagous for some purposes.
> And then not bother trying to claim it is Open Source, as it is clearly
I (and I suspect most people on this list) have no problem with software
that isn't open source, as long as they don't try to pass it off as open
The sort of license you suggest above, if it included the proviso that
it becomes open source (e.g. GPL'd) after a time delay, would be one
I would approve of -- I'd be happy to buy software under that license.
***** Phil Hunt *****
"An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your silly
little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation of a
paperclip to look at instead."
-- Windows2007 error message
More information about the License-discuss