Subject: Re: new licensing model
From: superm40@comcast.net (Matthew Seth Flaschen)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 06:37:05 +0000


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Nikolai <n_k@au.ru>

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

Yes, but changes to the OSD are always minor and this is not the proper forum to propose
them.

> What is “sale” according to OSD #1?

It would be the standard definition, "exchanging goods for property"

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

The sellers shall not be required to pay a royalty the copyright owner

> 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”?
> 

Anyone with a copy can sell software licensed under a OSD-compliant license.  The copyright
owner can not demand money from those who do so.

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

As the site states, the purpose is to "to review licenses submitted to license-approval@opensource.org."
 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 Flaschen