An idea - request for comments

[Carey Evans]

Nigel Head <nhead at houbits.com> writes:

> Actually, having thought and done some research I feel like going for
> the Artistic License for any future stuff I may distribute. It doesn't
> prescribe commercial use but I've decided that was a Wrong Thing to
> want to do anyway. It does disallow selling the software (as opposed
> to using it commercially) which is what I really meant to say; apart
> from that it's Open Source certified and I can actually understand it
> -- as opposed to the GPL which reads too legalese for my small brain!

Well really, anything that is covered by the OSD _does_ allow selling
in some circumstances, which is what the Artistic license does in
section five.

If I decide that $100 is a reasonable copying fee, and whoever I sell
it to agrees or is convinced by my marketing, I can "sell" it for
$100.  (See the definitions.  Note that I don't have to justify to you
what I sell it for.)  Or I can use it in a $1000 package and sell
that, under section 8, as long as it isn't obvious I'm using your
software!

The Debian Free Software Guidelines, which the OSD is mostly based on, 
assume that a collection of Free Software can be sold for as much as
anyone will pay.  If you try to stop anyone from selling your software 
at all, it *won't* be Open Source.

-- 
	 Carey Evans  http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/c.evans/

	       "This is where your sanity gives in..."