Subject: Re: new licensing model
From: superm40@comcast.net (Matthew Seth Flaschen)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:07:34 +0000


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

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

Obviously, you don't know what a monopoly is.  However, it is true that OSI has established
and trademarked the term "open source."  The founders of the organization were the first
to use the phrase.  Thus, they have the right to say what they think it means.  It is
alright for others to have different understandings of the phrase.  The OSI, however,
will continue to use the meaning enshrined in the OSD and will not change that definition
substantially.  Most users of the phrase agree with the OSI's meaning anyway.

> Society consists of people. If author creates a work, others must not be 
> restricted to share it for studying, creating derivative works, etc. – 

If you believe that, you can't have a licnese that demands royalties, which act as restrictions

> 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.

Why is it "natural and correct"?

> 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). 

That author notification requirement would again act as a severe restriction.

> If otherwise “openness” remains impracticable declaration, 
> I think. 

Open is meant in the sense that the source is visible to all, and distributing and modifying
the work are privileges open to all

> 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? 

As I've said, requiring royalties prevents unlimited distribution, and that is in opposition
to open source

> - such open source might become a source of wealth for authors, attract 
> new authors and therefore increase innovations and speed of development;

Some businesses have found open source to be a successful business model.  However,
the open source definition is not meant to ensure "a source of wealth for authors."

> - 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)

The OSD allows you to sell a copy of the work.  It does not allow charging for the use
or distribution of the work.  To do so would again restrict distribution, which goes
against open source.

> and it might generate good 
> profit (furthermore new works will keep on coming that supports market 
> and social choice);

We do not measure the success of open source based on whetehr it "generates good profit"

> - society becomes rich of a) knowledge without stagnation of 
> development, 

That is the purpose of the current OD.

> What is the reason to be against this?

Simply put, what you are proposing does not seem to be open source.  If you have a different
philosophy about software development, that's fine.  Just don't try to impose it on
OSI.