For Approval By: S-GPL

[Joel Sherrill]

zhihang wang wrote:
> The licence I used for my project is as follower. I named it S-GPL.
>
>  License (S-GPL)
>
> This open source project is protected by the GPL license ONLY for the
> noprofit usage.
> For ENTERPRISE customers, you MUST follow the license (named
> Signatured-GPL)below:
> * 1. If your enterprise has contributed to the this open source project, you
> can use this software freely under the  Apache License.
> * 2. The contribution to this project now only include helping improve the
> source code of the project, such as algorithms, architecture and functions.
> Other contributions should be recognized by the project leader.
> * 3. The enterprise customer can also use this software for any purpose
> under the [Apache License  by obtaining a signatured license from the
> members of the this project.
>
>   

This violates criteria number 5.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Ignoring that, you will have definition problems
on non-profit, enterprise, and "contribution".  I
can see picking a bug off the list, submitting a patch
and saying my enterprise contributed.  Is that enough
in your mind?

What about the potential case where the project leader
doesn't like me and decides my submissions don't count
as a contribution?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get the signatures
of the members of a significant project after a few years?
The group grows, people come and go, people die.  What
happens when a person dies?

As a project maintainer, I wouldn't want to be put in a position
to arbitrate or track the requirements this license would
require for me to properly administer it.

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (256) 722-9985