I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up. It's called the Single Supplier Open Source License. I will be distributing software under this license as well as the traditional Open Source licenses found at opensource.org.
You can see a copy of the license and its associated FAQ at http://www.rsmba.biz/licenses . A link on the homepage at rsmba.biz will also direct you there.
I will also be working directly with opensource.org to address any issues they have with the license wording.
The license has the following features:
# Users have freely available access to source code, documentation just like the GPL. # Users may use, modify, and install the software on as many computers as they want within their organization. # Any changes made by the user and others get contributed back into the base product # The developer's right to control who provides services using the product is protected. # The developer's right to control who can distribute the software is protected. # The developer has complete control over the product forking. # The developer and all contributors retain copyright of their individual works. # 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.
Please feel free to contact me on or off list about this announcement.
Richard Schilling
Not only is he spamming, he is also advocating a non-open source license as if it is.
Do we have any recource against him?
Shachar
Richard Schilling wrote:
I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up. It's called the Single Supplier Open Source License. I will be distributing software under this license as well as the traditional Open Source licenses found at opensource.org.
You can see a copy of the license and its associated FAQ at http://www.rsmba.biz/licenses . A link on the homepage at rsmba.biz will also direct you there.
I will also be working directly with opensource.org to address any issues they have with the license wording.
The license has the following features:
# Users have freely available access to source code, documentation just like the GPL. # Users may use, modify, and install the software on as many computers as they want within their organization. # Any changes made by the user and others get contributed back into the base product # The developer's right to control who provides services using the product is protected. # The developer's right to control who can distribute the software is protected. # The developer has complete control over the product forking. # The developer and all contributors retain copyright of their individual works. # 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.
Please feel free to contact me on or off list about this announcement.
Richard Schilling
Richard Schilling wrote:
I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up.
[ ... ]
One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution Restrictions and Obligations." of your license fails to comply with OSD #1 & 2:
"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form...."
See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.
Hi guys,
First, someone who sends the same email to at least four mailing lists (freebsd, wine-devel, postgresql-hackers and ossi) is a spammer in my book. Replying to his email, especially to lists that are not relevant (i.e. - any but ossi) is helping him along.
To answer his (asked) question - since this license is clearly LGPL incompatible, I don't think he is likely to make contributions to Wine under this license. At least, not contributions that will be accepted. As his license is also BSD incompatible, I dare say it is equally off topic for FreeBSD and postgresql.
This guy is obviously trying to solve the "how can I make money from free software" dillema by introducing a proprietary license and calling it "OpenSource". Interesting idea, but it has been tried before (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx, except they didn't have the audacity to call it open source). This is just a proprietary license. Nothing more to see here. Move along.
Shachar
P.S. I am not subscribed to the stable@freebsd.org mailing list. A search of the archives did not show this particular Richard Schilling post. I was not sure whether to dump this mail (which is just as off topic as the original one) on that list as well. I'm sorry if I chose wrong.
I did notice that on stable@freebsd, Richard is at least an occasional poster. Here on Wine-devel he is a first time poster as far as I can see. This may explain the difference in responses between the lists.
Sh.
Chuck Swiger wrote:
Richard Schilling wrote:
I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up.
[ ... ]
One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution Restrictions and Obligations." of your license fails to comply with OSD #1 & 2:
"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
- Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form...."
On 2004.01.24 17:24 Chuck Swiger wrote:
Richard Schilling wrote:
I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up.
[ ... ]
One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution Restrictions and Obligations." of your license fails to comply with OSD #1 & 2:
"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product. In this respect there is no difference from my license. Under my license if a developer wants to release the code to you, and allow you to distribute, he/she can. The point is that the developer has the exclusive right to make that decision.
- Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form...."
If a developer chooses to not release their code, that's up to them, in which case I would not call the _software_ an Open Source product. However, the license is Open Source because it does not prevent the distribution of code - it simply requires the end user to get the code from the source that the developer approves of. If a developer says the product can be distributed through Sourceforge, then it can.
I read that very carefully.
Richard ----- End Forwarded Message -----
Richard Schilling wrote:
Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product. In this respect there is no difference from my license. Under my license if a developer wants to release
[snip]
How is any of this related to Wine? Even the Wine-related license discussions got its own mailing list, wine-legal.
I'll help your cause though:
/Jakob
Sent this to winehq.com, so sending it to winehq.org in case it bounces.
On 2004.01.24 17:24 Chuck Swiger wrote:
Richard Schilling wrote:
I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up.
[ ... ]
One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution Restrictions and Obligations." of your license fails to comply with OSD #1 & 2:
"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product. In this respect there is no difference from my license. Under my license if a developer wants to release the code to you, and allow you to distribute, he/she can. The point is that the developer has the exclusive right to make that decision.
- Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form...."
If a developer chooses to not release their code, that's up to them, in which case I would not call the _software_ an Open Source product. However, the license is Open Source because it does not prevent the distribution of code - it simply requires the end user to get the code from the source that the developer approves of. If a developer says the product can be distributed through Sourceforge, then it can.
I read that very carefully.
Richard ----- End Forwarded Message ----- ----- End Forwarded Message -----
[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
On 2004.01.24 17:45 Cordula's Web wrote:
[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.
Under the BSD, and other licenses it's _possible_ but not required to give access to the code - it's up to the developer. The BSD license and several other Open Source licenses allow deriverative works to become closed and there is nothing the developer can do about it. With the license I provide, if a developer wants to require their product *and* deriverative works to be open to the public they can. That's a big difference in the world of licensing.
The [L]GPL license makes this the submission of changes mandatory, but the problem is that the unrestricted distribution of the software makes it impossible for the developer to enforce the requirement. And unfortunately, that fact makes the requirement useless.
Strictly prohibiting deriverative works to be distributed in ways unintended by the author is the way to guarantee a product and it's deriveratives remain open source. Under BSD, there is no such restriction, so the original author has absoutely no say in how "open" deriverative works are. Under GPL and BSD the developer has absoutely no control or means to keep their work an open source because they cannot remove distribution from people who don't comply.
# 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.
In the context of this license it matters greatly. Since the end user cannot distribute the software to others outside their organization, this clause clarifies that they can use the product in an unrestricted way within their organization. It makes the requirement black and white - within your company use the product on all your computers. But don't let it get to computers outside your company. That requirement becomes very clear with this statement.
# 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.
Commercial vendors may not want to adopt this license because they can't get a free ride. I'm perfectly fine with that because I want my company to be a place where Open Source developers can work for real wages. And, that means the developers on this list. If you want to volunteer your time so Apple and any other company can earn millions on your hard work then that's your choice - use a different license.
# 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.
If a developer really intends to keep their product open source, they can direct others to distribute the work for them. The point is they retain the exclusive right to make that decision. Consequently the end users have a very clear choice then - if the developer can no longer develop the software because, say they have a new job, then the end users can offer that person a job to make it possible for him/her to continue working on the product. Under GPL and other licenses, that person is simply replaced. That's a huge detrement to the quality of a software product because people skills, not the software are what make a software product great.
# 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.
Under this license if a developer wants to let the world distribute their product they can specify it - the point is that developer has the ability to grant and revoke that permission to *distribute*. But when end users have downloaded the software they can use it indefinitely and modify it for their own use.
# 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 problem with [L]GPL and BSD is that if someone does not turn in their changes then the developer has no recourse to enforce the requirment. Under this license they can.
# 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).
This license would not be appropriate to use if your goal is to create software as purely a volunteer effort. This license gives an incentive for companies to pay the original developer and contributors for their time to continue developing an open source product, or failing that to pay them for the right to distribute the product and provide services. If a particular product is truly valuable to an end user, and it was necessary to "keep the product going" then the user has an incentive to pay the developer/contributors for the time they invested, *and* to pay them for their time to transfer knowledge about the product. Furthermore, by keeping the original developer involved in the transfer of knowledge, the original developer the ability to ensure the quality of training.
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?
I am trying to make it possible for people to earn a living as Open Source developers. I am also making it possible for companies that do Open Source development as their primary activiey to provide jobs to those (like those on this list) who invest their time into Open Source products.
Richard
Richard Schilling
-- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
-
Chuck Swiger -
Cordula's Web -
Jakob Eriksson -
Richard Schilling -
Shachar Shemesh