new licensing model

Matthew Seth Flaschen superm40 at
Sun Dec 18 06:37:05 UTC 2005

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Nikolai <n_k at>

> 2. Licences and the Open Source Definition (OSD) can be changed because 
> they have versions.

Yes, but changes to the OSD are always minor and this is not the proper forum to propose them.

> What is “sale” according to OSD #1?

It would be the standard definition, "exchanging goods for property"

> “The license shall not require a royalty or other fee” for whom (for 
> which party)?

The sellers shall not be required to pay a royalty the copyright owner

> How to connect “The license shall not restrict any party from selling …” 
> with “The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale”?

Anyone with a copy can sell software licensed under a OSD-compliant license.  The copyright owner can not demand money from those who do so.

> This is for discussing licences as well because of 
> license-discuss at .

As the site states, the purpose is to "to review licenses submitted to license-approval at"  We may stray a little from time to time, but the purpose is not to create new "licensing models" or propose changes to the OSD.  More importantly, the changes you have proposed will never be made.  If a license demands royalties for distribution or sale, it is not and never will be open source.

-Matthew Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list