OT: non-commercial open source license?

[G. Matthew Rice]

lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
> > You can also do things like what DJB does. You can modify and redistribute
> > but you can't call it <original name>.
> 
> I thought djb didn't allow any binary distribution if there were any
> modifications.  Source code/patches only.  Hence the entire problem with
> djb's software license.  Same for pine and related mail software.

That's correct.  While DJB does say this about qmail:

     If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports,
     no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my
     approval. This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your
     intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant
     information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you
     want to distribute.

But I was wrong about it being a general rule (and no rename).  I thought
that I confused myself with the original NPL (Netscape Public License) but
the OSI don't list that any longer.  So I looked at the MPL and it only says
that you have to rename the name of the license (the MPL and other names) if
you derive a new license.

Now I'm just confused and pissed off at how many stupid licenses there are
for, essentially, the same model.  I really hope that the Creative Commons
license family catch on more.

Hmm, I think that I'm going to write a ridiculous license for some stuff and
get it OSI approved :)


> > Also, any copyright owner on anything 'open source' has the right to make
> > proprietary mods as well as 'selling' the software with different licenses.
> 
> But if they accept patches and such, what license does that fall under?
> At least mozilla explicitly states what the license is and what they
> intend to do with patches.

Ah, there's the rub.  It's the copyright holders that get to specify the
license.  It's quite possible that some contributor to the Linux kernel could
say, "I refuse to let you use my code with your GPL'ed license."  Then they
would have to yank it from the kernel.

Many people think that giving someone a patch automatically transfer
copyright to the recipient, too.  That isn't so.  For an example, check out
what you have to do to submit patches to the FSF:

    http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legal-Matters

IIRC, any patch over 12 or 14 lines requires this documentation.


> > It sounds like the guy has some decisions to make.  If he doesn't want
> > commercial exploitation, for example, because he plans on doing it himself,
> > it behooves him to get that ball rolling.
> 
> Depends on how people feel about their code.  Some thing the work must
> be paid for and hence won't want anyone else to make money from it if
> they don't.  Others think the work itself was the goal, and that the
> more people it helps the better.  If someone makes money from it, that's
> fine too.  They often go for the BSD license.  The ones that want to
> pretect every users ability to do the same, tend to prefer the GPL.

I think that we're in agreement on that.  The guy's got some thinking to do :)


> Personally I am more of a BSD type of person.

Me, too.  On a personal note, I don't think that the GPL is any freer than
BSD.  GPL is all about freedom for 'the code' whereas BSD is about freedom
for 'the user'.  Different types of freedom but they both work.

    "I'm afraid philosophy is just too much responsibility for me
     ...
     I could never get the hang of ideology"
        -- Tim Curry

TTFN,
-- 
g. matthew rice <matt-s/rLXaiAEBtBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org>           starnix, toronto, ontario, ca
phone: 647.722.5301 x242                                  gpg id: EF9AAD20
http://www.starnix.com              professional linux services & products
--
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