Dual licensing

[Sam Barnett-Cormack]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Marius Amado Alves wrote:

> Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:
>
> > Requiring a fee for use is certainly a restriction. It's open source if
> > you charge someone a fee, but they can pass it on without anyone having
> > to pay anyone anything - but if such second-hand recipients have to pay
> > the original licensor money, it's not Open Source - by the letter and
> > spirit of the definition.
>
> I see. But the SDC philosophy is sort of the other way around. Nobody
> charges upstream in the distribution. Only when revenues are generated
> downstream, the shares go back up to every author. And also only then
> are the shares negotiated. In my perception this model is not against
> the spirit of open source--and probably not even against the letter.

The spirit of Open Source is to allow the downstream distributors to
distribute however they like, without restriction. *Any* restriction.
That includes restricting their ability to charge for the distribution
(of identical or derivative works), by demanding any share thereof.

And this is what is meant by 'no restrictions' in the OSD.

-- 

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