The OSD and commercial use

[jasonc at darkpenguin.com]

> The Open Source Definition seems to prevent a license from requiring 
> commercial users to pay the authors of the software a fee (cf. clause 6, and 
> perhaps 1, OSD version 1.9)
> 
> Why?

I believe that would be discrimination against users which is against the OSD. 
However, the OSD doesn't prevent a company from making money from their software.

> Consider a business model with this basis: the software is distributed
> freely, 
> but if someone makes money using it, then the authors are entitled to a just
> 
> compensation. Method: the software is distributed under a license that 
> requires that if anyone uses the software in a business then they must pay
> the 
> authors, thru their representative (the business), a negotiated fee.
> 
> Is this model 'bad' in any way? Are the stated rationales for clauses 6 and 1
> 
> really 'against' it? Every open source commentary text recalls the 
> orthogonally of the commercial and open source aspects. Shouldn't _this_ 
> rationale require a license of the type I propose be possible?
> 

While I wouldn't say it's 'bad', it wouldn't be considered Open Source.

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