Subject: Re: Proprietary but flexible licenses.
From: "Karsten M. Self" <>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 15:43:55 -0700
Mon, 7 May 2001 15:43:55 -0700
on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:19:19PM -0400, Adam Theo ( wrote:

Please set your mailer to wrap lines at 72 characters.

> Crispin Cowan writes:
> > What you're describing is pretty similar to Sun's Community Source
> > License
> ah, thank you. i'm going to look at the license now. see how close it is
> to what i'm wanting.
> > Note that SCSL is largely reviled in the free/open source communities.
> hm, understood. thanks again. i take it that the SCSL is definately
> *not* considered Open Source, then, even if Sun *may* have tried to push
> it as, or just as good as, it? not claiming they did, just trying to
> clarify, since as i understand it, there are a couple of different
> definitions of what open source is floating around ( and
> the FSF, etc.).

This was a large part of the disagreement with Sun.

Sun had created a non-OSD compliant license, then complained bitterly
when it was labled as such.  If Sun had been willing to say "this isn't
OSI Open Source" from the start, things would have gone rather more
smoothly.  There isn't necessarily anything wrong with proprietary
licensing.  There is a problem in misrepresentation.

Sun seems to have more or less sorted things out.  They've even released
some software under a combination of licenses, including the GNU GPL

Karsten M. Self <>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]