Subject: Re: Misunderstanding of the basics?
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Date: 15 Jan 2001 09:32:05 -0800

Ralf Schwoebel <puzzler@intradat.com> writes:

> > My second comment is that if this meets the open
> > source definition then that is a flaw in the
> > definition.
> 
> Or intented to be like that? I see nowhere the sentence:
> "Do not charge money for software under the license XXXPL)

As someone who became relatively rich through free software
development, I certainly agree that there is no such sentence.

But if you look at
    http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
you will see that there are some sentences which you are ignoring.
Specifically, the license must allow modified and derived works.  Your
license does not allow them--it requires the licensing bits to be
unmodified.
f
> > requirement conflicts with item 7 of the open
> > source definition.  (You may not require an
> > additional license.)
> 
> I do not see a point there, there are a lot of companies
> out there, which mix GPL and MPL or like Lutris who
> mixes closed source with GPL parts. If you markup these
> parts, it's fine.

I have no idea what you are talking about here?  Do you mean the
``mere aggregation'' clause?

> > My fourth comment is that 3.3 (that the code for
> > license keys cannot be deleted and must be
> > included in anything that copies from the software)
> 
> => if there is a license key check you are not allowed to
>  do that with GPL either... but GPL is so weak that it is
>  not even mentioned...

If code with a license key check is released under the GPL, I
certainly am allowed to remove or modify the check for the license
key.  What makes you believe otherwise?

> I just got the feeling that everybody is afraid of using that
> ugly word "money" in combination with the word "OpenSource".

Hardly.  We're just afraid to use the ugly word ``proprietary'' in
combination with the words ``open source.''  You are showing a
proprietary license and calling it open source.  You don't get to
redefine words like that.

> On the contrary, I think we are involved for a very long time,
> invested a lot of money into a lot of projects (against senseless
> US patent laws in Europe, e.g.) and we are serious and OPEN with
> our opinion that somebody has to pay the developers.
> 
> It is obvious that this "consulting, training & support" approach
> for software companies is not working and that this damn question
> "How to earn money" with Open Source can not be answered by 
> hardware vendors who do a lot of cultural sponsoring to abuse
> the word for their value on the stock market. 
> 
> We spent a lot of time to enable companies to survive in that field
> by finally paying the developers. That is the whole background.
> Even LI is thinking about that with the new fund, but do you think
> we can uphold that hobbiest approach and convice ORACLE to open
> the source for their DB?

Hey, if you want to say that open source can't work, I may disagree
with you, but you are entitled to your opinion.  But if you want to
promulgate a new definition of open source because you believe the
current one can't work, then I'm afraid that I have to disagree.

Ian