new licensing model
n_k at au.ru
Sun Dec 18 18:57:20 UTC 2005
Chuck Swiger wrote:
>>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 OSI board is identified at: http://www.opensource.org/docs/board.php
>However, the notion of a monopoly is where a subset of the population controls a
>(presumed finite) resource; the term doesn't really apply to a case where
>everybody is guaranteed access and the resource in question, namely software,
>does not get depleted when shared more broadly.
>The core principle behind OSI Open Source means the software is available to
>everyone, free of charge, to modify and redistribute to others. If I can't
>redistribute freely (or resell for whatever price I want to charge without owing
>anyone else a royalty), the software isn't OSI Open Source.
I was speaking about monopoly on open source concept/definition.
>[ ...lots of stuff deleted... ]
>>- 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?
>Don't misunderstand, lots of people (on this list and elsewhere) do some form of
>commercial software development to earn a living. But that model of commercial
>development, which forbids free redistribution, is not open source.
>Some people feel that open source provides a better model for developing good
>software than what you've described, which is a fairly common model used by the
>more open commercial software vendors and is sometimes called "source-available
>Certainly that is better (IMHO, anyway) than completely closed commercial
>software which comes without any source code access at all. If you believe your
>model will result in better software over time than the open source model, by
>all means, go ahead and find out how it does in practice.
My model doesn’t forbid free (re)distribution/use if it is not for
making money, please check http://tvl.ton.net.ru/Lic_ru_en_v01.pdf .
More information about the License-discuss