Must publish vs. must supply

[Mark Rafn]

On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Chris F Clark wrote:

> I would like an open source license that
> prevents or atleast substantially "discourages" commercial users who
> wish to use it for closed source applications, but allows them to use
> it when developing open source applications.

[I'm relatively new to the OSI-list, so I apologize if this message is out 
of line in any way.]

I understand the desire to license software in such a way that it doesn't 
compete with your business, but I'm not sure it's compatible with what I 
think of as "open source".

There are a number of proprietary licenses to choose from that allow users 
to have some of the freedoms granted by open source software.  You will 
gain some of the benefits (in terms of PR, bug reports, patches) while 
still retaining the control you desire.

It sounds like you may prefer a noncommercial sharing license, or a 
noncompete license.

I personally believe that an actual free license gives additional benefits
to the software author (like the satisfaction of knowing the software is
useful and that good pieces can live on in other programs.  Also community
acceptance that can (or not, sometimes) lead to better bug reports,
patches, and suggestions for the product. 

But it's not for everyone, and certainly not for all software.  If you 
intend to sell the software itself (rather than selling support, add-ons, 
or other services related to it), you probably want to limit your 
competitors from doing the same.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon at dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

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