Trolling and helping a spammer (was Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License)

[Shachar Shemesh]

Hi guys,

First, someone who sends the same email to at least four mailing lists 
(freebsd, wine-devel, postgresql-hackers and ossi) is a spammer in my 
book. Replying to his email, especially to lists that are not relevant 
(i.e. - any but ossi) is helping him along.

To answer his (asked) question - since this license is clearly LGPL 
incompatible, I don't think he is likely to make contributions to Wine 
under this license. At least, not contributions that will be accepted. 
As his license is also BSD incompatible, I dare say it is equally off 
topic for FreeBSD and postgresql.

This guy is obviously trying to solve the "how can I make money from 
free software" dillema by introducing a proprietary license and calling 
it "OpenSource". Interesting idea, but it has been tried before 
(http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx, except 
they didn't have the audacity to call it open source). This is just a 
proprietary license. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

                Shachar

P.S.
I am not subscribed to the stable at freebsd.org mailing list. A search of 
the archives did not show this particular Richard Schilling post. I was 
not sure whether to dump this mail (which is just as off topic as the 
original one) on that list as well. I'm sorry if I chose wrong.

I did notice that on stable at freebsd, Richard is at least an occasional 
poster. Here on Wine-devel he is a first time poster as far as I can 
see. This may explain the difference in responses between the lists.

                Sh.

Chuck Swiger wrote:

> 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.
>


-- 
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Systems Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/