freebsd stable - Jan 2004 - New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License

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.

-- 
-Chuck

[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
-- 
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/