<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.4417.0">
<TITLE>RE: OSI compliance requiring software to be "free beer"?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>In the U.S. all speech is free speech, and all</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>speech is licensable. Music industry comes to mind.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Carter</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: William Abernathy [<A HREF="mailto:william@olliance.com">mailto:william@olliance.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:56 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: Manfred Schmid; license-discuss@opensource.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: Re: OSI compliance requiring software to be "free beer"?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > We know, that up to now Open Source Software has been free </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> both in the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > meaning of "free speech" and "free beer". We want to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> introduce a model</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > that guarantees free speech but takes the free beer aspect away.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Under certain conditions, IPL requires you to pay the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> prices according</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > to our price list, if you want to use IPLed software.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Within the discussion it turned out, that most participants </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> argued, Open</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > Source Software has to be free in the sense of "free beer", i.e.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > requiring the user to pay license fees will be a no-go for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> OSI approval.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> ></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> > We have not found any such restriction being officially published.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> There is no such published restriction, because A) there's no </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> sentiment out</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> there that you shouldn't be able to make money; B) there's a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> general enmity</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> to making money by shutting people out of your code.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> The reason you can't have "free speech" without "free beer" </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> is simple: you</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> can't license free speech. Licensing is an assertion of a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> superior grantor's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> right, which is in the main inimical to the free software </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> movement. If the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> state gives you a driver's license, it asserts its ownership </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> of the road,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and permits you a revocable privilege (not a right) to drive </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> on its roads.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> If you can only speak at the pleasure of the state, or if you </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> can only code</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> at the pleasure of the copyright holder, neither your speech </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> nor your coding</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> is free.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Putting aside the loaded question of "freedom" for a moment </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and getting into</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> open source territory, you again run into the same </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> difficulty. The Open</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Source Definition is designed on pragmatic, rather than </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> idealistic grounds.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Your licensing model, as has been pointed out here, fails </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> numeorus pragmatic</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> tests, not least among them the requirement that developers </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> work at your</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> pleasure, and on your financial terms. Because of this, your code's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> open-source life cycle is intimately and inseparably linked to the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> well-being of your company. Open source coders will not pay </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> for a key to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> program, only to watch their investment evaporate when your company is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> bought by some megacorporation or goes out of business. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Failure to comply</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> with your terms means denial of access to the source code. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> This is not open</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> source.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Any license that empowers the grantor to deny a developer further code</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> access based on financial consideration carries with it a freight of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> impracticality and moral repugnance that makes it untenable </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> as open source</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and unpalatable as free software. It is clear that someone in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> your company</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> has cooked up the notion that it can get something for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> nothing (i.e., free</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> development, free publicity, free goodwill) by calling its </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> products "open</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> source." This is not going to happen. Adjust your license or </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> adjust your</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> expectations.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> --William Abernathy</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>