3 ms·

> this fails the Open Source Definition at item 1 I don't think it does. Copyright law allows you to license five separate rights, and attach conditions to all

> this fails the Open Source Definition at item 1 I don't think it does. Copyright law allows you to license five separate rights, and attach conditions to all of them. For software redistribution is one of those rights, "use" (the right to perform/display) another. IANAL, but I would say it's possible to craft a OSD compatible license that requires users (but not distributors) to pay incredibly expensive per CPU licenses, or as the OP suggests a more reasonable fee. From what I can tell it's also possible to place that restriction on derivative works (modified versions), because the OSD only requires that the license allows for them "to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software".

btilly 14y ago
IANAL as well. However http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html says that copies made in a transient form - for instance into RAM so you can run software - are not covered under copyright law. The performance right you refer to is not a right to limit performance, it is the right to limit public performance. But what constitutes a public performance of software? I don't know, but I would be shocked if a private, personal viewing qualifies. But perhaps a website does. It is a murky area. And one that had not been thought of when the OSD was written. However if you tried to use the public performance right to make people pay money, I would argue that you're implicitly failing OSD #6, no discrimination against fields of endeavor. Because if my field of endeavor requires public performance then I'm treated very differently than if it doesn't.