Open Source Business Found Parasitic, and the ADCL

[Rick Moen]

Quoting maa at liacc.up.pt (maa at liacc.up.pt):

> > and that the OSD's "no discrimination against fields of endeavour"
> > clause requires businesses to "either sell to all recipients... or
> > give away to all [covered software]".
> >
> > Speaking for myself, I merely pointed out that these statements are
> > objectively wrong, and suggested that he read more carefully.
> 
> This claim I keep. I've seen no disproof of it.

It's a matter of simple logic:  None of the OSD-approved licences
requires even distribution of software, let alone selling or giving
away.

> I should say that my stand now is to accept hapilly not being Open
> Source as per the definition. 

Well, at the risk of being a bit blunt, if you simply intended all along
to write proprietary software, what are you doing _here_?  Lobbying for
alterations to the OSD to accomodate your business model?  Looking for
free advertising?

I really don't see why it should be the OSI's affair to ensure that your
particular type of business venture is profitable.  If you're looking
for a free-of-charge business-consulting agency or philanthropic
foundation:  Sorry, this just isn't it.

-- 
Cheers,                                      "My file system's got no nodes!"
Rick Moen                                    "How does it shell?"
rick at linuxmafia.com  
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3