Re: draft of a new Open Source Commercial License

[Liam Proven]

On 18 September 2013 09:48, Pirmin Braun <pb@intars.de> wrote:
> sure, that's right; but how can I express, that in real life usage it doesn't 
> make a difference compared to LGPL for 99% of the users?
>
> what if I put it this way:
> ...
> It gives you practically all the freedoms, the GPL (tm) is meant for:
> - the freedom to use the software for nearly any purpose,

Some general guidelines:

* Don't invent new licences.

[1] If you're a software developer, you're not a lawyer. Don't try to
be. If an untrained lawyer wrote software, they'd do a bad job and
look foolish. You will do the same trying to write legal texts.

[2] Companies often have terms in place permitting certain licences;
if yours is not one of them, it will not be considered, no matter how
good the product may be.

* "Practically all the freedoms"

"Not all" is not "practically" all. It is just some. Ergo, it is not Free.

* If you want to cover commercial use, dual-licence it.

As above, don't invent your own. Use an existing arrangement. It is
much easier and safer.

The point you are making yourself but seem blind to is that _if_ your
special licence will not make a difference to most people, then that
means they have to do work to discover if they are in the 1% and that
will put them off. It looks like a trap. You're not setting them free,
you're attaching terms that mean that you are going to ensnare just a
small number. That is offputting.

99% Free is not Free.

1% pregnant is still pregnant. If 1% of your body is alive, you are dead.




-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884