Subscription/Service Fees - OSD Intent

Carol A. Kunze ckunze at
Sat Mar 31 14:32:07 UTC 2001

At 01:23 AM 3/31/01 -0800, Chris Sloan wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 07:51:15AM -0500, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
> > He explained the difference using the example of a museum
> > open to the public.  Any member of the public has a "right"
> > to enter the museum.  But they still have to pay the admission fee.
>I would have said that, precisely speaking, a member of the public
>doesn't have "the right to enter the museum."  He has "the right to
>enter the museum upon paying admission."
>Many rights are limited or assume certain conditions.  Living the the
>US, I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that it is
>the "right to free speech without limits."
>Maybe I missed the distinction you were making.
>         Chris
>Chris Sloan
>cds at
>Systems Software Engineer
>Green Hills Software

Stepping away from a technical interpretation of the OSD, the requirement 
of a license fee seems inconsistent because it jeopardizes the primary 
byproduct resulting from the open source model of developing and 
distributing software - the stability and high quality of the product.

When the potential talent pool from which a product can draw programmers is 
the world - the consequences show in the quality of the product.

Charging a license fee to run the product reduces that talent pool to a 
company's programmers and its paying customers.  What's more it means 
centralized control.  This isn't bazaar - its cathedral.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list