For Approval: TURKIX PUBLIC LICENSE

[Emre Sokullu]

> I think I still have the same objection. You are not allowing
> others to profit from the software in a particular situation.
> With open source, others have the right to make money using 
> software you wrote. The point is to keep the source open. That's
> what the freedom is about. Not "free" as in "only if you don't 
> charge", but as in "keep the source available".

If the point is to keep the source open, TPL also ensures that source
will stay open. There's only one section added to the GPL. And i rewrite
this section here: (pls forget about my recent license, i've changed it
and the new 2d. is: )

2.d Usage of this Product for commercial or non-commercial purposes are
permitted, as long as you have and you provide full free access to any
kind of internet based services using this Product.

Both commercial and non-commercial users may profit from TPL licensed
Product (forexample you can use my web hosting panel in your dedicated
web server for your commercial web portal). And the issue of profits of
web service providers, again there's no problem as long as they do not
limit their users from using their services. They make money or not out
of this, is not our point, they may still make money by advertisements
or else. Anyway, i'll point it out again below.. Please keep reading..

> > This means whether you support your services by things like advertorial
> > programs or not, as long as you do not charge anything for services
> > based on this Product, you will be able to use the Program, freely
> > modify it and distribute it under the same license.
> 
> And I do not think your section 2d above means what you say here.
> Besides, what is "full free access"?

Yes as I have stated above, I've changed the 2d regarding your thoughts,
and reshaped it. It exactly says that the only condition is to let
people freely use the services based on the TPL licensed product. I
think this is the "web" version of GPL, because GPL also does not only
ensure that the source will stay open, it also ensures that users will
access the Product freely. But when the matter is internet, GPL is
slightly not enough for ensuring this. TPL and the term "Full Free
Access" ensures this one.



> > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
> > > a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
> > > program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic
> > > research.
> > 
> > This license permits you to use the covered Programs in any field you
> > want. Take the example of phpBB.
> 
> I want to start a service by which I offer message boards for
> other people's websites. They can get my service by paying a
> nice fee so that I make a profit. That's perfectly ordinary
> business, but it's not allowed. Hence I conclude this field of
> business is restricted.

Yes I don't say that this kind of business is not ordinary, and should
absolutely be prohibited. But i say that; if my license doesn't break
any condition stated in Open Source Definitions, should be represented
as another open source approved license alternative for open source
developers. This does not mean every open source developers will choose
this license, but if this license does not break any definition, should
be represented as an alternative to open source developers.

And personally, i couldn't see any point that is inconsistent with this
new license. Moreover, there's only one condition added and it just talk
about more freedom.


"Full free access" here means, everyone should be able to use a service
based on the Product without any "material" charge. However, the service
provider may still make money by advertising, or any other way. But he
should not charge his/her client directly for the service using Product.


What do some companies by dual-licensing their non-web-based products
(forexample qt, mysql) is no different than the purpose of this license,
i think. And i don't see that this license is inconsistent with any of
the open source definitions. Everyone may use it with commercial or
non-commercial purposes (in my case, a company may use my web hosting
panel for its own dedicated servers forexample), there's no limit in the
scope of the license. It just brings an extra condition (services using
this Product should stay free) (so that forexample Sourceforge users may
use my web hosting panel) that protects both users' and developers'
rights.

Am i wrong? Do i misunderstand something? Or do i misunderstand the
whole picture :) But i really think that this license does not break the
open source definitions and if i'm wrong so that there should be sth
missing in open source definitions itself, that should be added or
underlined more strongly. (no i don't want to be arrogant, i just speak
in my understanding, if i'm wrong you can always correct me)