OT: non-commercial open source license?

[Kihara Muriithi]

On 1/4/06, Evan Leibovitch <evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> >On 1/4/06, Aaron Vegh <aaronvegh-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I've asked about him open-sourcing the tool, but his concern is that someone would post their own version and charge for it. So the question became: is there an open source licence that would restrict use to personal only, and not commercial?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It's not "free software" if it is restricted that way.
> >
> >
> Christopher is absolutely correct. By both the GNU definition of free
> software and the OSI definition of open source, you may not restrict the
> "type" of use (ie, non-commercial, education only, etc.).
>
> >Linux would have been no more than a historical curiosity if Linus had
> >restricted its use to "personal only, no commercial."
> >
> >
> This is indeed the fate of Minix, the pet project of an operating
> systems professor where Linus went to school.
>
> It wasn't until April 2000 that Minix (whose history dates back to the
> 60s) removed the "educational use only" restriction, but by that time
> Linux was well established. Arguably had Andrew Tannenbaum not had that
> restriction, and allowed Linus to build on the what existed rather than
> re-invent a Unix-like OS under the GPL, things might be quite different
> today.
That probably would not have worked well. If Linus started from an
established OS, there was no way he could have achieved the power he
currently holds. There would be different folks (See BSD), and though
GPL allow for later merging, that is very wasteful.
 Better the way it happened. A bit of re-inventing initially, but only
one tree from then on.

William
>
> Instead of being known as one of the co-creators of one of the world's
> most popular operating systems or at least remembered for all the system
> software research he did, Tannenbaum will likely be most remembered for
> his 1992 "Linux is obsolete" flamewar provocation in the Minix Usenet
> newsgroup.
>
> >If your friend doesn't want it used for "commercial" purposes outside
> >his control, then it is futile to "open source" it.  The whole point
> >of "open sourcing" something is to expressly give up that control.
> >
> >
> Well, there are some subtle exceptions. The Mozilla license is open
> source, yet retained extra rights to its creators. As the original
> author you can't control the use of the code you release, however you CAN:
>
> - Prevent others from distributing proprietary modifications (ie, the GPL)
> - Reserve for yourself the right to make proprietary modifications (ie, MPL)
>
> While being open source does not prohibit others from reselling the
> software, using the GPL prevents anyone from selling a closed
> enhancement. And it's hard to charge a lot of money for something when
> your neighbour can freely download and copy the SAME thing.
>
> - Evan
>
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml