Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:53:54 -0400

Brian Behlendorf writes:
 > It's not flame bait.  Show me an open source license that specifies that
 > each user pay the copyright holder for use.

You could have a license which specifies that each user have to pay
the copyright holder when they get the software from the copyright
holder.  It would have to allow others to redistribute it without fee,
but the license itself *could* require payment upon recipt from the
copyright holder.  Some people would be perfectly willing to pay.

The requisite licensing doesn't force you to change your business
model to distribute open source software.  You just have to use a
license which tolerates that action which is commonly called "piracy".
Microsoft tolerates "piracy" of its software in certain cases, so
clearly "piracy" is to the benefit of even the most proprietary
software company.

-- 
--My blog is at angry-economist.russnelson.com  | Can I recommend python?
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | Just a thought.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | -Dr. Jamey Hicks
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | 
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3