Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:14:29 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woods <wwoods@cybcon.com> To: "Cordula's Web" <cpghost@cordula.ws> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401241913410.15786-100000@yogi.cybcon.com> In-Reply-To: <20040125014550.E790A40822@fw.farid-hajji.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Cordula's Web wrote: And this has what do do with FreeBSD Stable ? > [This is OT for stable@ and wine-devel@, but let's contribute anyway...] > > > # Users have freely available access to source code, documentation just like the GPL. > > Access to source coce, documentation etc... is also possible under the > BSD license. Under the [L]GPL, it is mandatory. > > > # Users may use, modify, and install the software on as many computers as they want within their organization. > > Right. The number of computers should never matter. > > > # Any changes made by the user and others get contributed back into the base product > > This is the main difference between BSD and GPL, and you're using > the GPL model here. This is exacly what would prevent commercial > vendors from adopting this license. But, okay. > > > # The developer's right to control who provides services using the product is protected. > > That's a tough one. As long as the developer is _actively_ maintaining > a product, that seems reasonable. But it happens frequently, that many > developers loose interest in supporting a product. Locking the community > out would be counter-productive, to say the least. > > > # The developer's right to control who can distribute the software is protected. > > That's even uglier. Neighter the GPL nor the BSD license would be _that_ > restrictive. And see below, in case the developer drops maintenance. > > > # The developer has complete control over the product forking. > > Same as above. > > > # The developer and all contributors retain copyright of their individual works. > > That is already the case with [L]GPL and BSD licenses. What's new here? > > > # The software is always downloaded from the same place by the end user even if it's used as part of a larger product, protecting the quality of the software. > > See above. > > I'd suggest to add a clause of mandatory maintainership, that would > void the exclusive right of the developer/author to maintain and > distribute his/her work, if the originator fails to update his/her > product after some (yet-to-be-specified) time. Orphaned products could > then automatically fall under the BSD license (or GPL, or anything > less restrictive as what you're suggesting). > > > Please feel free to contact me on or off list about this announcement. > > What are you trying to achieve with this, which can't already be > achieved through BSD or [L]GPL licensing schemes? > > > Richard Schilling > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0401241913410.15786-100000>