Subject: Re: Software Licensing
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:45:59 +0900

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Capdevielle <scott@syndicom.com> writes:

    Scott> Keep in mind that I distinguish between open source and
    Scott> free software.  Open is very good for innovation but
    Scott> reserves the right to get royalties.

Please choose another name for your concept.  We really don't need to
open the door to limitless amounts of FUD by trying to undo a done
deal here---the OSD defines "open source software", and for practical
purposes (including extracting royalties) it's the same as free
software.  I agree with you whole-heartedly that the OSD is truly
unfortunate usage, but it is now established, and trying to buck that
will not help anything.

FWIW I have used "published source" and "source-available" for a
similar concept to yours, but both are obviously inaccurate).  Maybe
"accessible source" or "source-on-demand" might do?

-- 
Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory