From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > That said, I think a wall of shame page on the OpenSSH site > > might be a good idea: one listing all those big companies > > mentioned that have never donated a dime. Negative PR might > > result in more donations than managers receiving the minor > > annoyance message forwarded to them, which they'll simply delete > > and forget about. > > Too bad openSSH couldn't just require a license fee for openSSH to > be included in OS's besides openBSD that are sold for money. > This would > include corporate use as well. So if IBM wanted to include openSSH > in one of its products sold to someone, they would have to pay openSSH > to include it in their product or kick back to the openSSH > team some percentage > of the revenue generated by that product.
Complicating licensing and reducing freedom obviously don't fit project goals. Better approach. How about said companies belly up and support the group that enables them (in part) to enjoy the financial success they have? You shouldn't *have* to levy a license against somebody to get them to show some appreciation. Call it the moral right thing, or social responsibility, or whatever. It's not about paying for services or products. If that was the goal, don't you think that would have been put in place up front and called OpenSSH ClosedSSH and sold commercially? Ditto for OpenBSD? What is lacking is the symbiotic relationship that the corporations that are in a place to support the project don't currently care to engage in. For these companies, a parasitic approach is appropriate and they will simply take from the project (which, yes, they are entitled to because of the free licensing, BUT...) and never *give* back. This is parasitic. These organizations need to step up and enable the project that enables them. Leveraging licensing against them shouldn't be (and isn't) required. Period. A little goodwill, or charity, or responsibility or logic may be. > Of course, the license would have to be written so the > openSSH team is not > obligated to do support. Yet amazingly, the current license already is. YOU'RE FIXING THE WRONG PROBLEM. The problem to fix is _why don't the moneybag corporations contribute to the project that enables them to be successful?_ That problem is not fixed by compromising values and convoluting licensing. And its not fixed by bludgeoning them with a license clause. You're coming back to the realm of commercial software again. > If IBM wanted their employees to > use openSSH, they > would have to pay a site license fee. Of course, home users > (non-business) and > universities would be excluded. Sounds convoluted. DS
