Subject: RE: Modified Artistic License (eNetwizard Content Application Server)
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:02:02 -0400 (EDT)

Robert Samuel White writes:
 > Taken from the Artistic License (which is approved by OSI):

 > You may not charge a fee for this Package itself.

Hrm.  I would have a problem with that language if it came up for
approval now.  The question is: whether we should approve another
license with language like this, and bless it further?  It's not a
term that belongs in an Open Source license.  Who cares how much
somebody pays for open source software.  The fact of the matter is
that somebody else can charge less for it, or even give it away.  So
why should the license dictate the price??

 > Why are you suddenly being hard nosed with me?

Because your license just isn't that different.  It just isn't.  How is 
the world served by Yet Another Not Very Different License?  The
answer: it isn't.  The main problem that your license solves, so it
would seem, is the world's raging lack of a Robert Samuel White
license.  While you may feel that pain, I doubt anybody else shares it.

And I'm not being hard-nosed with just you.  I've been hard-nosed with 
other people, and they've decided that an existing license would be
fine.

 >  > I want my license associated specifically with my product.  That's
 >  > very important to me...

I'd really, really like you to consider using an existing license.
Consider it *hard*.  If, in the end, against best advice, you want
your own license approved, you'll get it.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com |
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | businesses persuade
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | governments coerce
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3