The Rails Wheels licencing system and Open Source

[Matthew Flaschen]

Mark Reginald James wrote:
> - Packages can be freely redistributed in terms of the letter,
>   though perhaps not the spirit, of the OSI definition. That is,
>   a package may be modified, repackaged, and on-sold for no fee,
>   but those receiving the software must be informed of the
>   requirement to check whether they can or must purchase a licence
>   if the software is later used on a live website.

John Cowan has already explained that your license is not OSD-compliant,
but I also have to object to this characterization.

Your license plan violates more than half the points of the OSD.  "All
packages are free of charge until used on a live website." violates OSD
#5 and #6 (discrimination against live web site operators) and OSD #10
because the license is specific to a particular technological use case
(websites).  "[T]he
  requirement to check whether they can or must purchase a licence"
violates OSD #7 because you are requiring "execution of an additional
license", OSD #8 because the separate license is only valid for the code
when running on that particular website (which is a product), and OSD #3
because the special "enhancement" to the license can not be passed on.

So, you're right, it does violate the spirit of the OSD.  But I have to
assume you're being deliberately dense when you say it complies with the
letter.

You can have your Exposed Source, but don't try to claim it's Open Source.

>  Can the licence be altered so that they are?

Of course, but there will no longer be a resemblance.

Matthew Flaschen