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

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Jun 8 18:49:23 UTC 2012

Quoting Love Nystrom (love.nystrom at gmail.com):

> Then I find the definition of Open Source to be strange indeed.

Surprise!  No pony, either.  (http://i-want-a-pony.com/)
Sorry, that's perhaps a little curt, so I'll get serious, below.

> However, if "field of endeavor" is scr*wing some authors over, so to
> speak, I agree.

If you as an author dislike how much a redistributor is charging for a
tarball of your source code, you are free to undercut him or her.  So is
anyone else in lawful possession of a tarball instance.  So, people with
grandiose notions of handlers' fees for providing a source code instance
tend to be self-limiting problems.

The pathological corner case would be you creating a very important
creative work (it need not be software), giving me a copy under
permissive licence terms, and then losing your copy, the only other one
in the universe.

In that hypothetical, I could put on my best Dr. Evil impression and
demand 'One _million_ dollars' -- or refuse to provide a copy to anyone.
Does anything give you as the distressed creator recourse against me?
No, not really.  You probably should have thought of the possibility
before you gave me the only other copy and then lost yours.

> What is the reason Open Source can not try to promote decency in
> this regard ?

A sufficient reason is that there's no effort to be an ideological
cause.  Sorry that doesn't work for you.

More information about the License-review mailing list