<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-signature">On 1/15/2023 6:20 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5aa4e676-c12d-7108-29c7-7adbaa5b5a97@berkus.org"><br>
Second: <br>
<br>
"places conditions to prevent the software from being put on the
market as commercial product because it can slow down and
prevent the spread of culture. That’s why this license does not
allow the licensee to ask for payment when distributing a
modified version, in any form." <br>
<br>
This statement is both completely incorrect, as well as a
violation of OSD#1. <br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
On 1/16/2023 8:59 AM, Carlo Piana wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0bbc01d929ca$64876df0$2d9649d0$@lexpan.law">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">"do not charge any price or cost, you are not allowed to ask for any kind of payment for the distribution or communication of the modified work in non-
source form"
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
As other have already commented, I think this is against #6. I think this shows
a misunderstanding on "free". I cannot condition my permission to use a
software artifact to the payment of a sum of money or other requirement,
but since nothing imposes me to distribute or provide a build (as opposed to
provide the corresponding source code of a build), I can very much ask to be
paid for this action, provided I don't otherwise restrict the rights in any
proprietary way.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
On 1/16/2023 11:48 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0bbc01d929ca$64876df0$2d9649d0$@lexpan.law">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
To me this is the most important problem with this license, and since it seems to be one of the motivating factors for creating this license in the first place, it seems this license ought never be approved, since its purpose is to violate the OSD.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree with these comments. The justification for the license is
"promoting the circulation of the code <i>but preventing the
software product itself from being placed on the market as a
commercial product</i>." The license submitter's stated intention
is directly contrary to OSD6 so I don't see how this license could
ever be approved.<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek (in my personal capacity)<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>