For Approval: TURKIX PUBLIC LICENSE

[Emre Sokullu]

Yes I see that AGPL is satisfactory for most cases. But i didn't know
that it wasn't OSI approved. Will it be approved soon, or included in
GPL v3.0?

Why AGPL or GPL didn't meet my needs?

Well because it's true that I was intended to make it possible to make
money out of your internet based Product, in some particular (but very
limited) situations.

Qt and MySQL were very good examples.. I know what they do is a very
complex job, and deserve to make money out of it.. And i don't compare
my Product with their works..

Plus as i couldn't see anything which states sth like "developers can't
make money out of their OSI approved licensed Product(s)", I decided to
bring my proposal to this list.

About the 6th section of The Open Source Definition..

I didn't think that my license had a problem here. Because TGPL license
was saying sth like that:

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.

OK it's true that it restricts somehow the way u use the Program. But i
thought that it's NO different that the following mentality of GPL:

"You can distribute this Program or make a derivated work; but the
distributed Program or the derivative works should have the same
license"

I think both give a freedom but restricts it somehow with a subclause
starting with "but" or "as long as"..

But OK i see now.. the GPL's restriction has no problem with open source
definitions but my proposal does. Because the GPL's restriction is
allowed and even favoured by the 3rd section of the Definition "
3. Derived Work". But the mine is somehow restricts the 6th section.

That's the reason why I gave up.. 

Regards..

Emre SOKULLU




On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 17:24, Michael R. Bernstein wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 05:34, Emre Sokullu wrote:
> > OK I've understood why doesn't it conform opensource.org regulations.
> > Thanks for the replies..
> > 
> > But I think this is a required section for some of the web based
> > applications. Maybe I was too strict in previous license, but adding
> > sometinhg like:
> 
> Emre,
> 
> Since you are aware of the AGPL, can you explain why (other than the
> fact that it isn't yet OSI approved) it doesn't meet your needs?
> 
> The AGPL would permit someone to create a commercial service based on
> the application, but would require any changes to publicly deployed code
> be published, maintaining the users' software freedoms.