K.S. Bhaskar wrote:
> Thomas Beale wrote:
> [KSB] <...snip...>
>> contracts (as a software vendor) where the software is FOSS (my company,
>> Ocean Informatics is offering a GPL or commercial licence choice to
>> buyers). Anyway, recently we had a conversation during the negotiation
>>
> [KSB] I have a minor bone to pick with the above.  Why do you consider 
> GPL to not be a commercial license?  For GT.M, our business model treats 
> the GPL as a commercial license.  The license is free but we charge for 
> support.

KS has a valid point, and may I commend to all and sundry a really
excellent paper by Brendan Scott of Open Source Law. The paper, titled
"The Open Source Legal Landscape", is full of clear thinking and can be
found on Brendan's firm's web site at http://www.opensourcelaw.biz/ Here
is a quote from it relevant to the above issue:

<quote>
4. Open Source as a New Model

4.1 Open source licensing is a customer driven market reaction to the
high transaction costs and anticompetitive effects that the old model
has produced. It effectively says that, through judicious use of
copyright, customers can acquire software with rights analogous to
ownership. In the example above, if the software is open source
software, the person acquiring the software would have property-like
rights over the use of the software in a manner analogous to the rights
they have over the screwdriver.

4.2 The fundamental difference therefore between the old, closed source,
model and the new, open source, model is that under a closed source
licence, a customer acquires very restricted rights in relation to the
software, whereas under an open source licence, a customer acquires very
broad rights analogous to ownership of the copy they acquire.

4.3 Another way of looking at this is that open source licensing
attempts to treat software as a form of property, while the old model of
licensing attempts to prevent such treatment. That is, open source is a
form of deregulation of the software industry. Open source uses
copyright to effect that deregulation.

Open Source is Pro-Copyright
5.1 An open source licence is a licence over copyright granted by the
copyright owner of a work which has certain characteristics (discussed
further below). As a licence, it is only meaningful in the presence of
the copyright regime. Open source licences are explicitly dependent upon
the continued existence of copyright for their efficacy. As open source
would not exist without copyright it is incorrect to assert that open
source is opposed to copyright.

Complement of Commercial is Non Commercial, not Open Source
5.2 A corollary of section 4 above is that open source is a particular
model for the commercialisation of software. It is a different model,
but not a non commercial one. That said, there exists open source
software which is made available on a non-commercial basis, just as
there is closed source software which is made available on a
non-commercial basis.

Complement of Open is Closed, not Proprietary
5.3 A corollary of paragraph 5.1 above is that the copyright in open
source software is owned by someone, otherwise there is no basis on
which a licence can be granted. As such to oppose the terms
"proprietary" and "open source" software implies that the copyright in
open source software is not owned by someone. This is incorrect. That
said, this use of "proprietary software" is, unfortunately, widespread.
If anything, the complement of proprietary software is public domain
software. That is, software over which copyright does not exist or is
not asserted.
</quote>

Tim C


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/W4wwlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to