The Rails Wheels licencing system and Open Source

[Mark James]

John Cowan wrote:
> Mark Reginald James scripsit:
> 
>> - All packages are free of charge until used on a live website.
> 
> This violates OSD #6, discrimination against fields of endeavor
> (because the software can be used on a system which is not used for a
> "live website").

John, this would only be the case if a requirement to check, and
perhaps pay, a licence fee is considered a form of use restriction.

> Furthermore, a use restriction such as this can only be imposed by
> contract, and there must be a clear offer and acceptance -- for example,
> you might put a page explaining the terms of the contract in front of
> the download page.  But if Alice downloads the code and posts it to her
> own web site without such a contract page, it wouldn't be binding on
> Bob when he downloaded from Alice's site.  If you forbade Alice from
> putting the package on her site in this way, you'd violate OSD #1.

The distribution licence makes the licence check "advertisement" viral.
Are you saying that OSD #1 not only prevents restrictions on the
ability to give software away, but the manner in which software is
given away?

> The case _Specht v. Netscape_ made it clear that a mere link to
> the contract terms which Alice can click on or not is insufficient.
> (See the .signatures below.)

Thanks for the pointer. Perhaps I need to make clear that
licence check advertisements need to be of the form that
allows licence terms to be accepted by the act of initiating
a download or opening a packet.

>> The aim is a permissive redistribution system that allows
>> authors to be compensated for use of their software, rather
>> than just for trouble with its use.
> 
> That's proprietary software, period.

It's commercial software. But is it Open Source commercial software?

Mark