<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/25/2012 09:40 AM, Hadrien
Grasland wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5061DE72.9080202@yahoo.fr" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Now, people could indeed decide to
add additional license terms to request that one pays some kind
of extra charge for the binary, but I did not and that's what
matters as far as OSD compliance is concerned. Isn't it ?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
So, you're not looking for a GPL-like license at all in that case,
but an LGPL-like one. GPL very clearly requires free redistribution
of the entire program, including any additions that people might
make to it. LGPL allows derivative works that are not under the same
terms.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5061DE72.9080202@yahoo.fr" type="cite">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> <br>
Otherwise, I have to ask again : both the BSD and the MIT
licenses permit one to charge for source code by adding extra
terms. Should they be declared OSD-incompatible ?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Assume that I give you source code under the BSD license. You can't
add terms to <i>my</i> license without my permission. What you can
do is place your <i>own</i> license on your derivative work. This
might be a modified copy of the BSD license, but it should not be
called the BSD license at that point. My license still applies to
the pieces that I own, without any additional terms at all.<br>
<br>
It's a bad idea to have something called the "Modular Open Source
License" that allows arbitrary additions to be added to it and is
still called the Modular Open Source License once those things are
added. Because, of course, it might not be Open Source any longer.<br>
<br>
There's also the issue of license proliferation. Where the number of
OSI-approved licenses is N, the problem of understanding the
combination of any two licenses in the set requires the study of N *
N-1 combinations by lawyers. Developers aren't often equipped to do
this study on their own. We don't want you to have to hire a lawyer
just to develop Open Source (although that is in fact the case for
companies today). So, we tend to discourage the creation of new
licenses. A license that is literally built to be modified would
thus pose a bad effect for the community, by increasing the
combinatorial problem.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>