For approval: ENCUL

[maa at liacc.up.pt]

Except for the expiration condition, the ENCUL has essentially the same gist as 
the Conditions of Use of SDC Artifacts (see 
http://yahoogroups.com/group/softdevelcoop):

"(a) an SDC artifact is distributed freely, but if (b) anyone makes money using 
it, then (c) the authors of the artifact are entitled to a just compensation."

This is simply against clause 6 of the OSD, so give up all hopes of OSI-
compliance :-(

The SDC license is adapted from the Conditions of Use of MAA Artifacts, which 
was discussed here at length last March, on thread "Open Source Business Found 
Parasitic" (http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?
3:aas:6881:ipcfiicagclpcbdlkkbm#b).

Now the SDC is *assumedly* against clause 6, still calling their model "open 
source" :-)

IANAL, TINLA, and I'm not in the OSI board, I'm on SDC's.

BTW, I'd like to know from the list if the term "open source" is legally 
protected. I don't think so, but obviously I need to know for sure, and this 
community seems the best place to inquire that.

Thanks,
--Marius

-----------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through NIAAD: http://www.niaad.liacc.up.pt/


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