For Approval By: S-GPL

[Rick Moen]

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

> I have read your article in detail. I still considered that my license has
> more advantageous  than the existing open source license.

But it is not, itself, open source.  So, your business on this mailing
list is done.

> First, the programing source is open.

This is true of quite a variety of proprietary setups.

> Second, the contributor of this project has the opportunity to obtain
> money easily.  As you denoted in your article, GPL is "poison pill". 

The sense in which Bruce used that word, however, was merely that third
parties cannot create and distribute proprietary derivative works, while
the copyright holder can.  I stress this matter because I'm not sure you
quite understood Bruce's point.

> Other models, such as the proprietary open source model, is contradict 
> to the spirit of open source.

First of all, the term "proprietary open source model" makes no obvious
sense, as it contradicts itself, exactly as if you spoke of a "noonday
midnight".  

However, it's possible that you meant "the model of using open source as
a tool for making software also available under proprietary terms for
money".  Do you object that doing so "contradicts the spirit of open
source"?  If so, I suggest you are getting hung up on a rather
meaningless point of ideology.  Licences do not (strictly speaking) have
"spirits":  They are legal instruments, that produce particular effects
and can be used in a variety of ways.

It is simple reality that a copyright holder can offer a work under
multiple licences, quite common for the combination in question to be
copyleft (e.g., GPL) as one option and a proprietary licence for pay as
the other, and a very longstanding practice to do so.

Furthermore, in that scenario, people who want access to code under
fully open source terms but don't insist on using it in proprietary ways
get their wishes, while other people who want proprietary terms and are
willing to pay for them likewise get their wishes -- _and_ the copyright
holder gets an income stream from the latter.  What about this
"contradicts the spirit of open source", exactly?

> The main difference between my license and the QT license is that the
> contributors of this project have the right to sell the project to
> commercial customers.

You seem to be confused.  Nothing prevents sale of code under the QT
Licence to commercial customers.

No, the main difference between your licence and the QT Licence is that
yours is proprietary.

> So I think my license should be also be open source
> license.

No.  You've already had explained to you, patiently, why your licence
plainly fails to satisfy the Open Source Definition.  I'm sorry, but 
it is not possible to argue your way around that fundamental point.  If
you wish to produce a new open source licence -- and, really, you'd be a
lot smarter to read the existing ones to see which best meets your needs
-- then read the OSD and write a licence that complies with it, rather
than one that plainly does not.