Subject: Re: Definition of open source
From: Rick Moen <>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 10:36:55 -0800

Quoting Alan Rihm (

> Michael - We had a reputable firm in Philadelphia (PA) give us an
> opinion, and the resulting opinion was that current OSI approved
> licenses (single or dual strategy) do not serve our purposes "as-is". We
> did, however, base our license on the Mozilla 1.1 license since we are
> ok with many of the provisions. The changes were limited to do the
> following:
>  - Make certain that redistribution was free
> (except that you may charge fees for the media on  which you distribute
> the Contributor Version or your Modifications and for related shipping
> costs)
>  - Require companies who wish to make a profit by offering our software
> as a service to partner with us. (Initial and Contributor Grant - You
> may not operate the Covered Code in or as part of a
> commercially-available hosted service, nor may You charge others for
> access to or use of the Covered Code (whether in Source Code or
> Executable form) over a network)

Ah, so the other shoe finally drops!

Mr. Rihm:  

Your Web site's front page ( and a linked press
release page ( refer to
the above-mentioned proprietary licence as "open source".  That is a
deceptive misstatement of fact.  Please correct the error by removing
your firm's false claim of open source licensing.  Thank you.