Subject: Re: new licensing model
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:13:22 -0800

Quoting Nikolai (n_k@au.ru):

[regardling OSI being the custodian of the Open Source Definition:]

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

Table-pounding rhetoric will not change the fact that you've proposed 
to abuse the term to mean something antithetical to its definition.  
I hope you don't think you're the first to think of that tactic:  Quite
a number have tried it.  Most were much smoother than you.  And the answer 
has generally been polite, but has invariably been "no".

So:  Your "new licensing model" is yet another proprietary shareware thing,
and not open source.  Deal.  Have a great day, be happy, make lots of
money -- but, sorry, Nikolai, it's just not open source.  Bye!

-- 
Cheers,             
Rick Moen                 "Anger makes dull men witty, but it keeps them poor."
rick@linuxmafia.com                                   -- Elizabeth Tudor