[License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE

[Love Nystrom]

On 2012-06-08 22.03, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Love Nystrom<love.nystrom at gmail.com>  writes:
>> I submit a request for OSI review and approval of this "No Nonsense
>> Open Source License".
>>
>> This license is a direct derivative of the BSD 3-clause license, with
>> the addition of a 4th clause specifically prohibiting a 3rd party to
>> charge for the original work.
> Such a clause makes the license non-open-source, and violates at least clause 6
> ("No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor") of the Open Source
> Definition (http://opensource.org/docs/osd).

Then I find the definition of Open Source to be strange indeed.
Common logic would have it that open source means you have access to the 
source,
and can make modifications to your liking if you have the capability.

If "field of endeavor" means dealing commercially in the software 
unmodified, I don't agree
that it discriminates such activity, it just means they have to 
communicate with the original
authors first (share the gain). And if they actually provide software 
binaries or modified versions
that are not available at the source, they are not dealing the original 
work, they are dealing a
value added service, which the 4th clause explicitly permits without 
undue limitation.
However, if "field of endeavor" is scr*wing some authors over, so to 
speak, I agree.

>> There is good reason for such a clause, in light of some horrific
>> examples seen recently in the Open Source software community, where a
>> 3d party have charged 100s of dollars for open source software, with
>> little or no derivative efforts of their own.
> Open source does not (and can not) prohibit undeserved commercial gain.
>
> As long as the terms of the original software's license are complied
> with, including any attribution requirements and license notice
> requirements, people are free to charge whatever unjustified amount they
> wish for providing a copy of the software.  If they can find customers
> willing to pay that amount, that's between them and the customer.

I think that's wrong!
Customers (the general public) are ignorant, and cannot be expected to know
that some software they like is available for free as Open Source.

> In open source, people are allowed to extract unearned profit, so long
> as they do not interfere with others' freedoms in ways that violate the
> open source license.

What is the reason Open Source can not try to promote decency in this 
regard ?
Why must open source imply that a 3rd party is free to extract 
undeserved gains
from work, not only software, that the original authors have provided ?

> Open source does not remove all injustice from the world.  It merely
> provides a framework in which people can reliably exercise a certian set
> of freedoms, if they choose to.

Yes, of course it does not remove all injustice, nor could it be 
expected to.
However, I'm suggesting is that it could try to promote decent behavior 
in it's particular field.
Why can't we have one more clause, that tries to promote giving the 
authors a decent share ?
The source is still available after all, and i do not agree that such a 
clause would
discriminate against any field of endeavor, unless the field of endeavor is
specifically to extract undeserved profit from the work of others.

Best Regards
// Love


>> [Begin License Template]
>>
>> NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE
>>
>> Copyright (c)<YEAR>,<OWNER>
>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification,
>> are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>
>> (*) Redistributions of source work must retain the above copyright notice,
>>     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>
>> (*) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> notice,
>>     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> documentation
>>     and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>
>> (*) Neither the name of<OWNER/ORGANIZATION>  nor the names of it's
>> contributors
>>     may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this work
>>     without specific prior written permission.
>>
>> (*) You may not demand payment for this work, except for Your own efforts.
>>     That is, You may e.g. charge for Your own efforts if You include this
>>     work in derivative works of Your own, or You may extract a reasonable
>>     charge for the distribution media and mailing cost if You send a disk
>>     containing the work to a 3rd party, but You may not charge for the
>>     work itself without written permission from the original author(s).
>>     The original author(s) of this work believes it very wrong if a
>> 3rd party
>>     demands payment for work that he/she/they have given away for free.
>>
>> DISCLAIMER:
>>
>> THIS WORK IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>> AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
>> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
>> ARE DISCLAIMED.
>>
>> IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>> DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
>> (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
>> SERVICES;
>> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
>> ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>> (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
>> THIS WORK, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>
>> [End of License Template]
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review