Subject: Re: new licensing model
From: Nikolai <n_k@au.ru>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:29:26 +0300

Matthew Seth Flaschen wrote:

> >>"- to give authors the opportunity to get paid even when their works 
> were used
> >>in the works of other authors and the copies of the works of other 
> authors are
> >>used for making money."
> That goal is fundamentally contrary to OSD #1. Take your "new 
> licensing model" elsewhere. Furthermore, this is for proposing 
> concrete licenses. To find out how to do so, read 
> http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php#approval

Thanks for the link.

In my understanding:

1. Licences and the Open Source Definition (OSD) must be for people.

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

For example, since “Open source doesn't just mean access to the source 
code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with 
the following criteria:” (Introduction of the Open Source Definition, 
version 1.9) maybe in future versions the title will be: the Open Source 
Distribution Definition (OSDD).

3. “That goal is fundamentally contrary to OSD #1” (Matthew Seth Flaschen).

OSD #1: “The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving 
away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution 
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall 
not require a royalty or other fee for such sale”.

According to my Collins English-English dictionary “sale” means:
- the exchange of goods or property for an agreed sum of money;
- the amount sold;
- an event at which goods are sold at reduced prices;
- an auction;

What is “sale” according to OSD #1?

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

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”?

4. “Furthermore, this is for proposing concrete licenses” (Matthew Seth 
Flaschen).

This is for discussing licences as well because of 
license-discuss@opensource.org .

Nikolai Krjachkov

http://jdnevnik.com/upravlenie