Open source + commercial

[Lawrence E. Rosen]

For an example of a license that distinguishes "commercial" use, see the
Aladdin Free Public License:

http://www.ghostscript.com/doc/cvs/Public.htm

It is not an OSI- or FSF-approved license, but it was written by Peter
Deutsch, who is an advocate of the open source and free software
movements (he used to be a member of the OSI board of directors).  

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Dixon [mailto:rodd at cyberspaces.org] 
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 2:44 PM
> To: Ravicher, Daniel B.
> Cc: 'Steve Lhomme'; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: RE: Open source + commercial
> 
> 
> I would not advise confusing "commerce" and "commercial." The Commerce
> Clause refers to an entirely different matter than what Steve 
> asked. Sure,
> defining non-commercial is not easy, but it's done all the 
> time because
> laws require the distinction to be made. For example, a trademark
> anti-dilution claim must show a use in commerce that is also 
> a commercial
> use. What that means is the Trademark holder shows that someone is
> diluting their mark in interstate commerce and that the 
> dilution arises
> from a commercial use. A parody of a famous trademark on a 
> popular website
> might be deemed in commerce, but it's likely (although not definitely)
> to be deemed non-commerical use since a parody is often 
> considered a use
> for comic effect. The point is every plaintiff claiming 
> anti-dilution must
> show those elements of the claim. It's difficult, but not impossible.
> 
> I do agree with Daniel in one respect: I am unsure whether 
> it's useful to
> draw the commercial/non-commercial distinction in the context of a
> software license, where enforcement is going to be 
> formidable. If the goal
> is to lock-out commercial competitors, why not try a M$ license? (Just
> kidding). It's not clear why you want to make the distinction 
> you asked
> about so it's difficult to suggest a license.
> 
> Rod
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Ravicher, Daniel B. wrote:
> 
> > Not to be sarcastic, but good luck trying to delineate 
> commercial from non.
> > The person who can do that is smarter than all 9 Supreme 
> Court Justices (and
> > all the ones before them).  Just look at the "commercial" speech 1st
> > Amendment doctrine or the "commerce" clause line of regulation.  For
> > instance, did you know that a farmer in Iowa who makes hay 
> to feed his own
> > animals (not to sell to anyone) is considered to be acting 
> in "interstate
> > commerce"?  My point: trying to separate commercial from 
> non-commercial use
> > is a waste of time (notice corporate law delineates profit 
> from non-profit,
> > not commercial from non-commercial, and maybe this is a way 
> for you to think
> > about).  Further, no matter what resolution you come to, 
> someone else can
> > come to a reasonable conclusion which is diametrically 
> different.  Hence,
> > litigation.
> >
> > I wish you the best of luck in whatever you decide.
> >
> > Take care,
> > --Dan
> >
> > Dan Ravicher
> > Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, LLP
> > 1633 Broadway, 47th Fl.
> > NY, NY 10019
> > p. 212.315.8032
> > f. 212.586.7878
> > mailto:dravicher at brobeck.com
> > http://www.brobeck.com/
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Lhomme [mailto:steve.lhomme at free.fr]
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 8:12 AM
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Subject: Open source + commercial
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a bit new to software licenses.
> >
> > I've investigated through all the usual OSI-approved 
> software licenses and I
> >
> > still haven't found what I'm looking for.
> >
> > I thought the QPL would fit, but after reading it 
> carefully, it doesn't seem
> >
> > like.
> >
> > What I'm looking for is a Free Software license, that 
> enables anyone to
> > use/modify/publish the source code, but only for 
> non-commercial products.
> > And
> > if anybody wants to use it in a commercial product, they have to pay
> > someone.
> >
> > Does something like this exist ? Maybe it was the other Qt 
> license which may
> >
> > not be OSI-approved ?
> >
> > thanx in advance
> > --
> > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> >
> > =======================================================
> > This email message is for the sole use of the intended 
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged 
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and 
> destroy all copies of the original message.
> >
> > To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email 
> to postmaster at brobeck.com
> > BROBECK PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
> > http://www.brobeck.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> >
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3