Subject: Re: Proprietary but flexible licenses.
From: Adam Theo <>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:19:19 -0400

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

> 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.).

> So while SCSL has the semantics that you want, it also has some unfortunate connotations.

hm, again. yeah, that could be bad. while i want to avoid those bad connotations, i
would like to go with the model i have in mind. i guess i may have to make my own license,
if that is feasible. and make it so it has the good aspects of the SCSL, but does not
try to force itself the way the SCSL does.

thanks mr cowan, i now have somewhere to start, at least.

>>    ||  "Did you ever get the feeling the world was a tuxedo,
>>    ||     and you were a pair of brown shoes?"
>How aprapos :-)

yes :) i heard this a few months ago, i am pretty sure on TV or a movie somewhere, but
for the life of me cannot remember where. it just stuck in my head and i decided it
was so good i had to put it in my sig.  :)

now i'm going to reply to another response in this email, conserve paper ;-).

Dave Turner writes:

>Why don't you ask instead on unfree-software-business?  You're not
>really talking about any sort of freedom at all.

my apologies. i wrote to this list because it had a very high level of professionalism
and no slander or degradation (high-quality members, in other words), and also had a
wide range of opinions and standpoints. i do understand that the list is named free-software-business.
as far as not having any sort of freedom at all, if you mean compared to BSD-style,
no, you're right. but i am not looking for traditional proprietary licenses that heavily
constrict the end user and third party developers. i am, however, looking for something
that is much more free than those, allowing end users a lot of power to view the source
and know exactly what they are getting, modify it, possibly even trying it out before
paying for it, and allowing third parties to build software that enhances or works off
of this program, if not allowing them power to re-distribute it.

if i am in error to post this thread to here, then i am very sorry, and will not do
so any longer, keeping my posts well within the bounds of's and the FSF's
   /\    --- Adam Theo ---
  //\\   Theoretic Solutions (
 /____\     Software, Politics, and Advocacy
/--||--\ email:   AIM: Adam Theo 2000
   ||    jabber:   ICQ: 3617306
   ||  "Did you ever get the feeling the world was a tuxedo,
   ||     and you were a pair of brown shoes?"