BSD+1 License

[Stefano Vincenzi]

> Stefano,
>
>> I will like to make a software license inspired in the Creative  
>> Commons
>> by-non_commercial license and based on the current BSD license.
>
> Effectively such a license would be shareware and not open source.   
> You
> do realize that, yes?

I have tought about it, and it is more like this: if you make a  
commercial distribution, share alike. What I want is a copyleft  
license that isn't as long as the GPL... but I guess it will be better  
to read and analyse the GPL before making that.

>> The main reason for this is that I consider adding a clause about
>> commercial use very important, and will also like to avoid the  
>> legaleze
>> found in some other licenses. A secondary reason is that the license
>> will have 2 versions: 1 in spanish and the other in english; which  
>> one
>> can be used in any country will be based on the official language and
>> what the authors of each software project consider appropriate.
>
> I think you need to watch "Destroy Your Community in 5 Easy Steps",
> because you're executing on 2 of the 5.
>
> Skip ahead to Minute 31 in this video:
> http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4859689 (sorry about the video  
> quality).
>
> Quite bluntly, what you've described is not an open source license.
> It's a shareware license which happens to involve some access to code.
> You shouldn't be bringing it to the OSI because what you're working on
> is not an open source project.  Nor should you expect to get any
> contributors or community, because you won't.
>
> --Josh Berkus

What I don't understand is how then the GPL is considered open source,  
if it has limitations for commercial uses.

I listened the video, and honestly don't know how it is relevant to a  
BSD license with an extra clause that adds copyleft (without using  
GPL). It is not about royalties (and honestly, #3 is a straw man  
because there can be derived licenses that add clauses that change the  
prior license in significant ways... how it is presented in the video  
is a little mocking for "making an argument") it is about making it  
easier to mantain compatibility between forks.

At least in intent, it is not about preventing commercial  
binarydistribution but ensuring that those forks give back the changes  
(made only to the modules or classes that were part of the original  
project, other modules developed outside the project but that uses/ 
calls to functions in the open modules can remain closed).

Capisci?