new licensing model
n_k at au.ru
Sun Dec 18 16:47:00 UTC 2005
Philippe, is it possible to read English text of the legal draft (new
French law on copyrigtht) you have mentioned?
“Yes, but changes to the OSD are always minor ... 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
Sounds like someone holds a monopoly on what open source is. If so, who
“The sellers shall not be required to pay a royalty the copyright owner”
“… I believe copyright is not a natural right; I am not sure it is a
right at all. In any case, when copyright protection is granted, it
should be temporary and for the benefit of society” (Matthew Flaschen).
Society consists of people. If author creates a work, others must not be
restricted to share it for studying, creating derivative works, etc. –
it is natural, correct (“for the benefit of society” as Matthew has said
and this is in my licence http://tvl.ton.net.ru/Lic_ru_en_v01.pdf) and
therefore can be a right.
Openness, in my understanding, takes place when anyone (and society as a
whole), including author, can see how the work is being used (this is in
my licence). If otherwise “openness” remains impracticable declaration,
I think. Why it is not natural, incorrect and therefore beyond the right
to share money among those authors who invested their knowledge in the
commercialized work? Authors, business people, society can benefit from
- such open source might become a source of wealth for authors, attract
new authors and therefore increase innovations and speed of development;
- business people pay once for the right to use the copy of the work for
making money (there is no royalty (as a percentage of the revenue from
the sale) for business people in my licence) and it might generate good
profit (furthermore new works will keep on coming that supports market
and social choice);
- society becomes rich of a) knowledge without stagnation of
development, b) equivalent relationships, c) taxes, at least.
What is the reason to be against this?
More information about the License-discuss