OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights

2004-06-14 Thread Bob Scheifler
Looking at OSD #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, I had imagined that it meant, among other things, that the license could not have one set of terms for commercial use and a different set of terms for research use. Yet there appear to be a few approved licenses that make such a

OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights

2004-06-14 Thread Bob Scheifler
Looking at OSD #6, No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor, I had imagined that it meant, among other things, that the license could not have one set of terms for commercial use and a different set of terms for research use. Yet there appear to be a few approved licenses that make such a

Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights

2004-06-14 Thread Randall Burns
My take on the discrimination against fields of endeavor means that a license can't be restricted for use in any particular industry. I don't see where the RPL does that. Everyone that enhances or modifies RPL code is required to share their resulting code(if they use it) with the world. Granted,

Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights

2004-06-14 Thread Bob Scheifler
Thanks for the response. Just in case this helps clarify things in terms of the APSL (can't speak for the Reciprocal Public License, sorry)... (My intent was not to knock specific licenses, but to give some possible examples to help set context.) The APSL 1.2 (currently now the APSL 2.0, which

Re: OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights

2004-06-14 Thread Bob Scheifler
Thanks for the response. My take on the discrimination against fields of endeavor means that a license can't be restricted for use in any particular industry. The phrasing of term #6, as well as the written rationale for it, seem to me to be broader than particular industry. The term itself gives

Re: Dual licensing

2004-06-14 Thread nospam+pixelglow . com
All, esp. Sam Rick: Sorry to be pedantic, but after looking at the OSI-approved RPL, it is obvious it restricts internal use: 1.2 Deploy... includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution of Licesned Software within your business or organization other than for research

Re: Dual licensing

2004-06-14 Thread Russell Nelson
Marius Amado Alves writes: (At the SDC we're drafting a new license. We're using the term fair source for internal work. I don't know if that's the term that will be exposed. Suggestions welcome. www.softdevelcoop.org) I use Source Available to describe software where you can get the

[Off-topic] open-source-debate (was Re: Dual licensing)

2004-06-14 Thread Evan Prodromou
RM == Rick Moen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: RM Now, people here are generally (if somewhat vaguely) RM sympathetic to your desire to find a business model that works RM for you, because we're generally pleasant and agreeable RM people. But sooner or later we'll tend to come back