AW: Restrictions in license
friedj at users.sourceforge.net
Fri Sep 23 07:25:32 UTC 2005
Yes, for example there would be a clause limiting the number of concurrent
sessions on a web server. Andrew Wilson mentioned it would violate rule 6,
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
Would you consider it a discrimination if someone would know right from the
start that they can only use a software for 100 concurrent users? Then how
about the GPL? Wouldn't you think that a lot of companies cannot use
software under the GPL commercially because they could not disclose their
entire "infected" software? What would you consider is the difference
between these two types of "discrimination"?
Please apologize in case I raise questions that you may have answered many
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Anderson, Kelly [mailto:KAnderson at dentrix.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. September 2005 20:28
> An: Joerg Friedrich
> Betreff: RE: Restrictions in license
> You need to be more specific... limitation on the number of
> users? the Type of users? what?
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joerg Friedrich [mailto:friedj at users.sourceforge.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:57 AM
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > Subject: Restrictions in license
> > Hi,
> > let's assume I would take an OSI approved license like the
> > Apache License
> > 2.0 for some server software (e.g. a web server), and would
> add a user
> > limitation to this license in a way that the license for the
> > server software
> > and all derived work carries this user limitation. Other than
> > that there
> > would not be any restrictions.
> > Would you still consider this an Open Source license in the
> > spirit of the
> > OSD? If not, which part of the definition would this go against?
> > Thanks for your thoughts on this.
> > Joerg
> E-Mail messages may contain viruses, worms, or other
> malicious code. By reading the message and opening any
> attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for
> taking protective action against such code. Sender is not
> liable for any loss or damage arising from this message.
> The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be
> legally privileged. It is intended solely for the
> addressee(s). Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized.
More information about the License-discuss