Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

[Chris F Clark]

My I (hopefully humbly) suggest that what MAA (and others like him as
the same request for an "open source" license that allows collecting
royalties appears regularly and not infrequently) is looking for is a
"sligtly" different model.  For lack of a better term let me call it
the "open royalties" model. (Perhaps someone like Eric Raymond has
aldready supplied a better name for this model, as I haven't read his
works in a while, in which case using the established term would be
prefered to my off-the-cuff term--please inform me.)

It is a model that preserves some of the attributes of open source
(most particularly the ability of recipients to receive sources for
such software at their whim, modify it, and redistribute it).  It has
one important and significant difference, of course, the requirement
that certain use of the software, whether received from the original
author or through an intermediary, still accrue royalties to the
original author(s).  That difference, of course, is a wide chasm is
some peoples eyes and a narrow one in others (hence "slightly" in
quotes).

And, while I don't think this is the forum to discuss such a model, as
it potentially steals adherents from the open source and free software
models, I hope it is not an error on my part to point out the obvious
(and I believe well-know to some) fact that this is what they are
looking for and that it is NOT OPEN SOURCE NOR FREE SOFTWARE.  If such
licensors formed their own coalition, such questions posted to this
list could be redirected to that coalition.  Whether members of this
list would want to do such redirection, I don't know--perhaps such
coalition already exists and being only exposed to this list I'm not
aware of it.

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