Dual licensing

[Marius Amado Alves]

> No, it's fundamentally not open source at all.
> 
> It may be a fine and useful licence for particular objectives, but
> please don't call it open source, as it's not that.

Altough all discussions about the use of the term "open source" always 
end in "OSI does not own it, it's alright to use it to mean what it 
literally does.", note that I never say just "open source", but instead 
say "commercial open source", or "open source, but..."

However I would say the SDC licence *is* "fundamentally" open source, 
because clause 6 is not the corner stone of open source, is it?

Anyway, I'm not particularly happy with the current version of the SDC 
Conditions. What really matters is the SDC philosophy, and eventually a 
better license text will be written, perhaps even OSI-compliant. Maybe 
based on the fact that GPL does not regulate *execution* of the program, 
and "use" is similar to execution, and so it seems possible to have a 
license like GPL with the addition of provisions regulating the 
execution=use in commercial businesses.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3