For Approval By: S-GPL

[Rick Moen]

Quoting zhihang wang (zhihang.wang at gmail.com):

> I think there are some problems in the open source license such as the
> famous GPL which perhaps restrict the open source software development.

You see a problem, but that may simply mean that it's not right for you.
For that matter, open source may not be for you:  Coders who find that
open source deprives them of ultimate control over code (which it does) 
will tend to be happier with a proprietary licence.

Moreover, your finding "some problems" with particular open source
licences is rather off-topic for this mailing list.  I'll return to that
point (the matter of this mailing list's mission), below.

> Because it's difficult to find a proper business model under this license.

This perception on your part is, of course, not OSI's problem.  

> First why someone would like to contribute to the project under this
> license? 

Countless words have already been written on this subject.  You'll find
some good examples on the OSI Web site.

> Secondly, some license, like Q license, is unfair for the open source
> community.

It's actually not very fruitful (much less relevant), in the current
context, to classify licences as "fair" and "unfair".  It's more
relevant and fruitful to consider open source versus proprietary.
If a particular licence meets OSI's published criteria for OSD
compliance, then it is eligible for certification, even if it's the most
"unfair" document ever created by humans.

> Third, many companies can use the open source project freely, such as
> google, to make profit. But who will like to denote so much money to the
> contributors?

If you'll devote a little thought to the problem, and study some of the
standard open source licences, you'll see how some licences (some copyleft
variants) can be used to preclude third parties from creating and
distributing proprietary variants, whereas the licensor can continue to
do so, as long as he/she continues to use only code over which he/she
has copyright ownership (i.e., code written internally or for which 
ownership has been signed over by the author).

> So I think the license should protect the contributor' interest. This is why
> the signature is needed.

So, you prefer proprietary licensing -- or at least believe yourself to
do so.  If that is the case, then your task on this mailing list is
done, because we are then finished evaluating your licence, and there is
not much else to discuss.

As a reminder, this mailing list exists to evaluate submitted licences
for OSD-compliance -- and not, for example, to convince submittors that
they should like open source.

-- 
Cheers,                      Notice:  The value of your Hofstadter's Constant 
Rick Moen                    (the average amount of time you spend each month 
rick at linuxmafia.com          thinking about Hofstadter's Constant) has just 
McQ!  (4x80)                 been adjusted upwards.