new licensing model
n_k at au.ru
Sat Dec 17 06:29:26 UTC 2005
Matthew Seth Flaschen wrote:
> >>"- to give authors the opportunity to get paid even when their works
> were used
> >>in the works of other authors and the copies of the works of other
> authors are
> >>used for making money."
> That goal is fundamentally contrary to OSD #1. Take your "new
> licensing model" elsewhere. Furthermore, this is for proposing
> concrete licenses. To find out how to do so, read
Thanks for the link.
In my understanding:
1. Licences and the Open Source Definition (OSD) must be for people.
2. Licences and the Open Source Definition (OSD) can be changed because
they have versions.
For example, since “Open source doesn't just mean access to the source
code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with
the following criteria:” (Introduction of the Open Source Definition,
version 1.9) maybe in future versions the title will be: the Open Source
Distribution Definition (OSDD).
3. “That goal is fundamentally contrary to OSD #1” (Matthew Seth Flaschen).
OSD #1: “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving
away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall
not require a royalty or other fee for such sale”.
According to my Collins English-English dictionary “sale” means:
- the exchange of goods or property for an agreed sum of money;
- the amount sold;
- an event at which goods are sold at reduced prices;
- an auction;
What is “sale” according to OSD #1?
“The license shall not require a royalty or other fee” for whom (for
How to connect “The license shall not restrict any party from selling …”
with “The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale”?
4. “Furthermore, this is for proposing concrete licenses” (Matthew Seth
This is for discussing licences as well because of
license-discuss at opensource.org .
More information about the License-discuss