[License-review] Request for Approval : Modular Open-source Software License (MOSL)

[Hadrien Grasland]

On 09/25/2012 01:31 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Bruce Perens dixit:
>
>> I'm afraid you missed "The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for
>> such sale" in the Open Source Definition.
> His draft does not require one. (In fact, the draft is neutral on that
> issue.)
>
>> We really like forks. Especially zero-price ones.
> You may, but nothing ever forbade selling source, in fact UCB and FSF
> used to do or still do.
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos

Exactly. I want to build a rather neutral software license, that can be 
used in both commercial and non-commercial software.

For non-commercial purposes, you can just use it as is. For commercial 
purpose you can also add extra clauses to mandate that people pay for 
the software before they are legally granted access to its source. What 
matters to me is that one cannot, as a design goal, prevent customers 
from getting access to the source at little cost if they have received a 
copy of the binary. Such a fork of the license would not be 
OSD-compliant, but as far as I know that does not prevent the original 
license from being OSD-compliant itself.

If it did, every "permissive" software license, like the BSD and MIT 
ones, would not follow the Open Source Definition, which would be a bit 
extreme to say the least.

Regards,
Hadrien