Subject: Re: new licensing model
From: Nikolai <n_k@au.ru>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:47:00 +0300

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 
Flaschen).

Sounds like someone holds a monopoly on what open source is. If so, who 
is monopolist?

“The sellers shall not be required to pay a royalty the copyright owner” 
(Matthew Flaschen).

“… I believe copyright is not a natural right; I am not sure it is a 
right at all. In any case, when copyright protection is granted, it 
should be temporary and for the benefit of society” (Matthew Flaschen).

Society consists of people. If author creates a work, others must not be 
restricted to share it for studying, creating derivative works, etc. – 
it is natural, correct (“for the benefit of society” as Matthew has said 
and this is in my licence http://tvl.ton.net.ru/Lic_ru_en_v01.pdf) and 
therefore can be a right.

Openness, in my understanding, takes place when anyone (and society as a 
whole), including author, can see how the work is being used (this is in 
my licence). If otherwise “openness” remains impracticable declaration, 
I think. Why it is not natural, incorrect and therefore beyond the right 
to share money among those authors who invested their knowledge in the 
commercialized work? Authors, business people, society can benefit from 
that because:
- such open source might become a source of wealth for authors, attract 
new authors and therefore increase innovations and speed of development;
- 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?

Nikolai Krjachkov

http://jdnevnik.com/upravlenie