Let me reply to finalize discussion
n_k at au.ru
Tue Dec 20 16:48:17 UTC 2005
"Table-pounding rhetoric will not change the fact that you've proposed
to abuse the term to mean something antithetical to its definition. I
hope you don't think you're the first to think of that tactic: Quite a
number have tried it. Most were much smoother than you. And the answer
has generally been polite, but has invariably been "no"" (Rick Moen
rick at linuxmafia.com).
It is not a fact. The facts are:
- I did not use a term "open source" in my license, you can check
- In my article “New licensing model” 15.12.05 I said "… after several
email talks with people regarding some ideas about Open Source" and
"Open Source movement": "… but author can not see who and how uses
his/her work legally. In my understanding it opposes free exchange of
content to the opportunity to commercialize it. Any restrictions to
develop the works further (because author does not see the ways to get
paid from this development) stop innovations and give rise to piracy and
break copyright. Open Source movement for any sorts of content (source
code, text, graphics, audio, video, etc.) would be more attractive for
people if the mentioned problem will be solved" - not "Open Source
Certification", "Open Source Definition".
- I did not ask an approval of my licence.
- I did not use any tactic, I asked my questions openly to see the
differences and similarities;
- Some comments were based on misunderstanding, for example:
"Many parts of your license depend on the involvement of the web or
blogs. However, this restricts distribution (at least commercially)
outside these channels" (Matthew Seth Flaschen).
From my licence v. 0.1, section 4.3: "You must provide the links from
the wrapper of the copies and from the space of display the copies to
the annotation of the work at this Licensing project".
"I am not criticizing your license …" (Matthew Seth Flaschen).
Criticizing is normal thing.
"Your "new licensing model" is yet another proprietary shareware thing,
and not open source. Deal. Have a great day, be happy, make lots of
money -- but, sorry, Nikolai, it's just not open source. Bye!
-- Cheers, Rick Moen "Anger makes dull men witty, but it keeps them
poor." rick at linuxmafia.com --
Elizabeth Tudor" (Rick Moen).
As far as I know shareware do not provide an access to their source code
and if I wish to use shareware for non-commercial purposes I must pay
after N days. In my licence source code must be open (to make derivative
works under single licence, not their contradictory set) and
non-commercial use is free (provided without charge). However I consider
any separation of author from money generated from the use of his/her
work as a sort of restriction and as a profit practice at the expense of
Also, I did not suggest selling works (as property). From my licence:
"4. Buy the right to use the copies of works for making money".
Anyway, thanks to all who participated in this discussion publicly and
privately. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
More information about the License-discuss