Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:45:50 +0100 (CET) From: Cordula's Web <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: rschi@rsmba.biz Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License Message-ID: <20040125014550.E790A40822@fw.farid-hajji.net> In-Reply-To: <20040124214735.GE548@foghorn.rsmba.biz> (message from Richard Schilling on Sat, 24 Jan 2004 13:47:35 -0800) References: <20040124214735.GE548@foghorn.rsmba.biz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[This is OT for stable@ and wine-devel@, but let's contribute anyway...] > # Users have freely available access to source code, documentation just like the GPL. Access to source coce, documentation etc... is also possible under the BSD license. Under the [L]GPL, it is mandatory. > # Users may use, modify, and install the software on as many computers as they want within their organization. Right. The number of computers should never matter. > # Any changes made by the user and others get contributed back into the base product This is the main difference between BSD and GPL, and you're using the GPL model here. This is exacly what would prevent commercial vendors from adopting this license. But, okay. > # The developer's right to control who provides services using the product is protected. That's a tough one. As long as the developer is _actively_ maintaining a product, that seems reasonable. But it happens frequently, that many developers loose interest in supporting a product. Locking the community out would be counter-productive, to say the least. > # The developer's right to control who can distribute the software is protected. That's even uglier. Neighter the GPL nor the BSD license would be _that_ restrictive. And see below, in case the developer drops maintenance. > # The developer has complete control over the product forking. Same as above. > # The developer and all contributors retain copyright of their individual works. That is already the case with [L]GPL and BSD licenses. What's new here? > # The software is always downloaded from the same place by the end user even if it's used as part of a larger product, protecting the quality of the software. See above. I'd suggest to add a clause of mandatory maintainership, that would void the exclusive right of the developer/author to maintain and distribute his/her work, if the originator fails to update his/her product after some (yet-to-be-specified) time. Orphaned products could then automatically fall under the BSD license (or GPL, or anything less restrictive as what you're suggesting). > Please feel free to contact me on or off list about this announcement. What are you trying to achieve with this, which can't already be achieved through BSD or [L]GPL licensing schemes? > Richard Schilling -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040125014550.E790A40822>