Re: draft of a new Open Source Commercial License

[Ivan Vučica]

I don't think it would satisfy FSF's standards for a free software license not 
OSI's standards for an open source license. OTOH, I think license cannot 
differentiate between classes of users to satisfy FSF, OSI, Debian etc. I 
remember there was a discussion about a license that proscribed you cannot use 
software for weapons development; since it talked about how the software may or 
may not be USED (GPL deals with distribution, as do most other OSI-approved 
licenses) and discriminated, I think people deemed it non-free.

I personally find no fault with IntarS license -- everyone has to, at the very 
least, eat. So, the text is probably fine (IANAL). Only, it doesn't seem to be 
an open source license so it should probably not be called one; it's more of a 
proprietary license where you happen to be able to see the code and 
redistribute it.

Do you offer IntarS as SaaS? If not, that may be a good way to get people to 
discover it, pay for it and yet not be restricted.

On 17. 9. 2013., at 23:45, Pirmin Braun <pb@intars.de> wrote:

> we plan to license the upcoming IntarS 7 under this license.
> What do you think about it?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pirmin Braun - IntarS Unternehmenssoftware GmbH - Am Hofbräuhaus 1 - 96450 
> Coburg
> +49 2642 40526292 +49 174 9747584 - skype:pirminb www.intars.de  pb@intars.de
> Geschäftsführer: Pirmin Braun, Ralf Engelhardt Registergericht: Amtsgericht 
> Coburg HRB3136
> <license.txt>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep