For Approval: TURKIX PUBLIC LICENSE

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Emre Sokullu wrote:
> 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. 

The GPL doesn't do that. At least, it's not stated in the GPL.
It's a side-effect. 

I have written some software. It is licensed under GPL. I will
only give it to you if you pay me 1,000 euro. That's allowed.
Of course you may then give it freely to others, so at most
one person will pay me.

And this is allowed even with someone else's GPL software. I
will give you any GPL software you want, as long as you pay
me 1,000 euro per program.  That's allowed.

> > 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.

I agree that alternatives are useful. However the OSD is very
important. If I see a license thatis OSI approved open source,
then I know my company can use and sell that software. We can
use it on our website to provide a commercial service for paying
users. We also know when to share our modifications and
improvements.

Your license still seems to say that we, as a business, cannot provide
the service to paying users only with restrictions on what these uses
can do.

> "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.

That is I believe inconsistent with the open source definition. 
You're restricting these people from using your software,
and you may not restrict *anyone*.

> What do some companies by dual-licensing their non-web-based products
> (forexample qt, mysql) is no different than the purpose of this license,

These people allow everyone to use their GPL-licensed software
for any purpose, as per the GPL. Those who do not like the GPL
or cannot live with the consequences can purchase another version.

But running a commercial database service is perfectly allowed
using the GPL-licensed MySQL database.

Open source protects users, developers and distributors. This
includes commercial users, such as people who will charge for
using or distributing the software.

I would rcommend that you look closely again at the Affero
license. That one doesn't put any restrictions on usage. It
just says "if you run it on the Web, you must offer the source
for download". That way the software stays open and anyone can
run any busines he wants.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/