Dual licensing
Marius Amado Alves
amado.alves at netcabo.pt
Fri Jun 4 22:39:37 UTC 2004
> No, it's fundamentally not open source at all.
>
> It may be a fine and useful licence for particular objectives, but
> please don't call it open source, as it's not that.
Altough all discussions about the use of the term "open source" always
end in "OSI does not own it, it's alright to use it to mean what it
literally does.", note that I never say just "open source", but instead
say "commercial open source", or "open source, but..."
However I would say the SDC licence *is* "fundamentally" open source,
because clause 6 is not the corner stone of open source, is it?
Anyway, I'm not particularly happy with the current version of the SDC
Conditions. What really matters is the SDC philosophy, and eventually a
better license text will be written, perhaps even OSI-compliant. Maybe
based on the fact that GPL does not regulate *execution* of the program,
and "use" is similar to execution, and so it seems possible to have a
license like GPL with the addition of provisions regulating the
execution=use in commercial businesses.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list