Hi, This is my first posting to your group but I have read a good amount of the content that has been posted.
My motivation is in finding an open-source model for software that promotes all the well known and discussed aims of open source but that allows a small independent startup to create a revenue stream. I am working on a provocative short paper titled something like "Why current open source revenue streams conflict with the open source philosophy" that I would like to forward to this list for comments. Before I do this though, I'd like some help in answering a few questions. 1) What is the current OSI certification status of the Sleepycat licence? This is in the context of their frontmatter defining distribution in a non-standard and restrictive way outside the licence itself. More generally, can ambiguity in the licence which is then clarified externally in a way which contradicts the open source definition invalidate the certification? 2) Dual licencing approaches allow revenue to be created from distributees who want to avoid the terms of an open licence. But this seems only useful for distributees who want more flexibility as distributors. It couldn't really work for "end-users" as they can pretty much do as they require under the terms of an OSI licence as long as they don't distribute. Is this a fair understanding or are there more subtleties that I have missed? Thanks, Tony -- Tony Butterfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1060 Research -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3