you can now officially call me Dr. :) Took me about 2 months,
but after calling these guys       801 697-0461      they helped get me setup
and get         fully
accredited! Great people.

Thank you Henry Pijffers for clueing me into Softdevelcoop! This
groups vision is exactly what I talked was trying to get at in my last
bloggings over at libervis.com

I still intend to release some of my code under OSS licenses but I
will definitely look to Softdevelcoop as the reference for producing
the licenses for the software I would rather get paid for.

Perhaps y'all would be interested in the research article I am working
on concerning copyright history and its role in the present age? Or
should I just post it the Libervis and keep kicking the same hornets'
nest?


-James Thompsn
New Orleans, LA

Bob Leif, Aryeh, and others: it might be the case that you are missing
discussion because you are not subscribed to the new mailing list yet.
If so, go to the SDC website and subscribe to the Open mailing list.

Never say never, but THIS IS REALLY MY LAST POST ON THIS LIST.

Your caring webslave,
--Marius

"How could they use that against us then?"  The Free Software foundation
and its followers could accuse us of being greedy and xenophobic.

    "So there is no fixed method of establishing the place of venue?"
    Membership in the Cooperative is the means to fix the venue.  Otherwise,
you have to negotiate on a case by case basis, which is exactly what I am
trying to avoid.
    Parenthetically, what is the status of this email distribution list?
    Bob Leif

    -----Original Message-----
From: Henry Pijffers [mailto:henry.pijffers@...]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:25 AM
To: softdevelcoop@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SDC] Arbitration


    Robert C. Leif wrote:
     >
    > I deliberately did not exclude the UN because I did not wish to have
the GNU people use that
    > against us.
     >
    How could they use that against us then?

    > My solution for venue, unless it is in the agreement is to use
    > the place where the tort occurred or the location of the entity being
sued,
    > or neither. In order to make this choice, one has to guess the
probability
    > of our license holder being sued vs. bringing the suit.
     >
    So there is no fixed method of establishing the place of venue?

    Henry



    +----- Software Developers Cooperative -----+
    |                                           |
    |     The future of software licensing!     |
    |                                           |
    +--------- http://softdevelcoop.org --------+
    Yahoo! Groups Links

(Sorry for duplicates.)

Dear SDC members:

Please subscribe to the new "SDC Open" mailing list at

     http://www.softdevelcoop.org/open_mailing_list.htm

The "softdevelcoop@yahoogroups.com" mailing list is obsolescent and
should be unsubscribed from.

PLEASE MOVE ***NOW***

THERE IS IMPORTANT STUFF GOING ON ***RIGHT NOW*** AND ONLY AVAILABLE ON
THE NEW LIST.

*** THIS IS THE LAST I POST TO "SOFTDEVELCOOP@YAHOOGROUPS.COM" ***

IF YOU ARRIVE LATE TO "SDC OPEN" PLEASE CHECK THE ARCHIVES.

See you soon.
Your caring webslave,
--Marius

Top post, Bob! I have some notes.

>       The development of a license was only half of my plan for
> revolutionizing the economics of software development.  The other part was
> to create a tool for dividing up the royalties.

This is the fun part, absolutely! Until now discussion has been more of
general and legal aspects. Boring, but probably was necessary. Now I'm
drafting an European project proposal, and the royalty tool constitutes
an entire work package.

> One very important
> requirement for creation of change in an industry is to maximize
> predictability.  Improvements in predictability are very important to
> investors.  This holds true for both capital and labor.  A major advantage
> of a software cooperative is the minimization of upfront costs.  The utility
> of my and other licenses is that they can provide a reasonable guarantee to
> a developer-capitalist that he or she will significantly economically
> benefit if the product is successful.  A developer-capitalist is a creator
> of software or other intellectual property, who, at least in part, trades
> immediate payment for their services for future royalties generated by the
> product.  For instance, Microsoft at considerable expense provides excellent
> buildings and surroundings for its workers.

Great paragraph. I think we'll use it in the proposal.

> The cost of the development of
> a product can be significantly reduced if the partner developer-capitalists
> work at home and require minimal salary from the capitalists who back the
> enterprise.

Here it must be made clearer that you are talking about the freelancers,
not the Microsoft employees.

>       This cost can be further reduced and the predictability of the
> individual owner-capitalists percentage of the royalties to the
> developer-capitalists can be established without the expense of
> representation by lawyers and accountants.

Here you are talking of the economical advantage of the royalty tool, right?

> The Ada Semantic Interface
> Specification, ASIS, includes the parts required to calculate the
> contributions of the developer-capitalists in terms of the source to the
> code that is linked to form the executable.  Unfortunately, I am neither an
> expert Ada programmer not an expert on ASIS.  Therefore, the Ada members of
> this group have an economic incentive to create this program.  Obviously,
> with enough effort, it should be possible for the users of other languages
> to create a similar program or possibly the equivalent of ASIS.

I suggest being language-neutral. Develop a theory first that can be
implemented for any language. It's ok to have Ada as a prototype, but
the theory, or specification, is what really counts technically.

>       One of the major functions of the Cooperative and potential sources of
> income will be to charge for the use of this program to divide up the
> royalties.  I would recommend the establishment of a reasonable royalty rate
> for both the use of program to determine the contributions of the individual
> developer-capitalists and the maintenance of the cooperative.

Here we see a problem. This scheme will work for implementations of the
tool, but not for its theory, unless we patent it, but software patents
are problematic. Or are they? Personally I am not against patents. If
nobody here is also, then maybe we should go ahead and patent the
Relative Credit Scheme and similars. But also, patents have a very
limited life span (don't they?), so this still cannot be the permanent
"major" source of income of the Cooperative/Foundation.

>       Finally, I should note that the status and acceptance of Ada will be
> greatly enhanced if her use resulted in the production of considerable
> wealth.  At least in the USA, money talks.

It talks everywhere, but I'd leave Ada advocacy out of the SDC charter.

Last but not least:

**********************************************************
***                                                    ***
***         SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEW MAILING LIST          ***
***                                                    ***
***   http://softdevelcoop.org/open_mailing_list.htm   ***
***                                                    ***
**********************************************************

I am also preparing a private mailing list for things that must be off
air namely the preparation of the European project proposal. I'll be
back on this subject soon.

Robert C. Leif wrote:
  >
> I deliberately did not exclude the UN because I did not wish to have the GNU
people use that
> against us.
  >
How could they use that against us then?

> My solution for venue, unless it is in the agreement is to use
> the place where the tort occurred or the location of the entity being sued,
> or neither. In order to make this choice, one has to guess the probability
> of our license holder being sued vs. bringing the suit.
  >
So there is no fixed method of establishing the place of venue?

Henry

The development of a license was only half of my plan for
revolutionizing the economics of software development.  The other part was
to create a tool for dividing up the royalties.  One very important
requirement for creation of change in an industry is to maximize
predictability.  Improvements in predictability are very important to
investors.  This holds true for both capital and labor.  A major advantage
of a software cooperative is the minimization of upfront costs.  The utility
of my and other licenses is that they can provide a reasonable guarantee to
a developer-capitalist that he or she will significantly economically
benefit if the product is successful.  A developer-capitalist is a creator
of software or other intellectual property, who, at least in part, trades
immediate payment for their services for future royalties generated by the
product.  For instance, Microsoft at considerable expense provides excellent
buildings and surroundings for its workers.  The cost of the development of
a product can be significantly reduced if the partner developer-capitalists
work at home and require minimal salary from the capitalists who back the
enterprise.
       This cost can be further reduced and the predictability of the
individual owner-capitalists percentage of the royalties to the
developer-capitalists can be established without the expense of
representation by lawyers and accountants.  The Ada Semantic Interface
Specification, ASIS, includes the parts required to calculate the
contributions of the developer-capitalists in terms of the source to the
code that is linked to form the executable.  Unfortunately, I am neither an
expert Ada programmer not an expert on ASIS.  Therefore, the Ada members of
this group have an economic incentive to create this program.  Obviously,
with enough effort, it should be possible for the users of other languages
to create a similar program or possibly the equivalent of ASIS.
       One of the major functions of the Cooperative and potential sources of
income will be to charge for the use of this program to divide up the
royalties.  I would recommend the establishment of a reasonable royalty rate
for both the use of program to determine the contributions of the individual
developer-capitalists and the maintenance of the cooperative.
       Finally, I should note that the status and acceptance of Ada will be
greatly enhanced if her use resulted in the production of considerable
wealth.  At least in the USA, money talks.
       Bob Leif

I used the MOZILLA license as the basis for mine.  I deliberately did not
exclude the UN because I did not wish to have the GNU people use that
against us.  My solution for venue, unless it is in the agreement is to use
the place where the tort occurred or the location of the entity being sued,
or neither. In order to make this choice, one has to guess the probability
of our license holder being sued vs. bringing the suit.
    Bob

    -----Original Message-----
From: Henry Pijffers [mailto:henry.pijffers@...]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 12:36 PM
To: softdevelcoop@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [SDC] Arbitration


    Ah, that sort of clauses you mean :)

    Yeah, I noticed my license was lacking such a thing (I was comparing my
    (MPL-based) license with the (also MPL-based) SUN CDDL), so I added that.

    Your clause seems like an improvement on the usual problem of choice of
    jurisdiction. However, your clause is also ambiguous. I can't tell where
    arbitration will be held, if any disagreement arises. Is the choice of
    jurisdiction in the order mentioned? Probably not, seems illogical.

    By the way, have you given thought to including an MPL-like clause
    regarding US government end users? And what about excluding the
    application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
    International Sale of Goods?

    regards,
    Henry


    Robert C. Leif wrote:
    > If at all possible because of the very high costs involved, one should
    > avoid litigation.  The complexity of the text of the License concerning

    > litigation and arbitration was increased because of the problem of
    > jurisdiction in a world-wide economy.
    >
    > Bob Leif
    >
    > With respect to disputes: (a) unless otherwise agreed in writing, all
    > disputes relating to this License (excepting any dispute relating to
    > intellectual property rights) shall be subject to final and binding
    > arbitration, with the losing party paying all costs of arbitration; (b)

    > any arbitration relating to this Agreement shall be held in
    >
    > ) A Country selected by mutual agreement of the Defendant and
Plaintiff;
    >
    > ) The Country of the Defendant if said Country is a signatory to WIPO
    > Copyright Treaty, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on December 20,
    > 1996.;
    >
    > ) The Country of the Plaintiff if said Country is a signatory to WIPO
    > Copyright Treaty, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on December 20,
    > 1996.;
    >
    > ) A third Country which is neither the Country of the Defendant nor of
    > the Plaintiff or an international or multinational organization duly
    > constituted to litigate disputes between citizens or other entities of
    > different Countries. The selection of the third Country shall be made
by
    > the Ada Developers Cooperative.
    >
    > with the losing party responsible for costs, including without
    > limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. Any

    > law or regulation which provides that the lan-guage of a contract shall

    > be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License (This
    > was copied from the original MOZILLA PUBLIC LICENSE).
    >
    > In the absence of an agreement between the parties to the form and
    > content of the arbitra-tion proceedings, the UNCITRAL Model Law on
    > International Commercial Arbitration (1985)
    >
(http://itl.irv.uit.no/trade_law/doc/UN.Arbitration.Model.Law.1985.html.
    > Last vis-ited 29 October, 1998) shall be followed.



    +----- Software Developers Cooperative -----+
    |                                           |
    |     The future of software licensing!     |
    |                                           |
    +------------ softdevelcoop.org ------------+
    Yahoo! Groups Links

Ah, that sort of clauses you mean :)

Yeah, I noticed my license was lacking such a thing (I was comparing my
(MPL-based) license with the (also MPL-based) SUN CDDL), so I added that.

Your clause seems like an improvement on the usual problem of choice of
jurisdiction. However, your clause is also ambiguous. I can't tell where
arbitration will be held, if any disagreement arises. Is the choice of
jurisdiction in the order mentioned? Probably not, seems illogical.

By the way, have you given thought to including an MPL-like clause
regarding US government end users? And what about excluding the
application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods?

regards,
Henry


Robert C. Leif wrote:
> If at all possible because of the very high costs involved, one should
> avoid litigation.  The complexity of the text of the License concerning
> litigation and arbitration was increased because of the problem of
> jurisdiction in a world-wide economy.
>
> Bob Leif
>
> With respect to disputes: (a) unless otherwise agreed in writing, all
> disputes relating to this License (excepting any dispute relating to
> intellectual property rights) shall be subject to final and binding
> arbitration, with the losing party paying all costs of arbitration; (b)
> any arbitration relating to this Agreement shall be held in
>
> ) A Country selected by mutual agreement of the Defendant and Plaintiff;
>
> ) The Country of the Defendant if said Country is a signatory to WIPO
> Copyright Treaty, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on December 20,
> 1996.;
>
> ) The Country of the Plaintiff if said Country is a signatory to WIPO
> Copyright Treaty, adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on December 20,
> 1996.;
>
> ) A third Country which is neither the Country of the Defendant nor of
> the Plaintiff or an international or multinational organization duly
> constituted to litigate disputes between citizens or other entities of
> different Countries. The selection of the third Country shall be made by
> the Ada Developers Cooperative.
>
> with the losing party responsible for costs, including without
> limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys fees and expenses. Any
> law or regulation which provides that the lan­guage of a contract shall
> be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License (This
> was copied from the original MOZILLA PUBLIC LICENSE).
>
> In the absence of an agreement between the parties to the form and
> content of the arbitra­tion proceedings, the UNCITRAL Model Law on
> International Commercial Arbitration (1985)
> (http://itl.irv.uit.no/trade_law/doc/UN.Arbitration.Model.Law.1985.html.
> Last vis­ited 29 October, 1998) shall be followed.

robertcleif wrote:
>
> I have looked at some of the licenses that were posted.
> Unfortunately, they did not have an arbitration clause. The Ada
> Developers Cooperative License (ADCL) does include one.
  >
Can you tell me what section exactly? I'm rather short on time currently
(I'm moving).

> I suggest
> that it's text or a modification thereof be added to the other
> licenses.
  >
Is that a suggestion to the authors of licenses, or is that a suggestion
to make an arbitration clause a requirement for licenses?

> Otherwise, the small developer will NOT have the funds to
> enforce their license against a large company.
  >
I don't see the link between this and arbitration, could you explain please?

regards,
Henry

Marius Amado Alves wrote:
  >
> Moving on, notice that my latest update to the website included a slight
> but significant change in wording in the Principles: I replaced
> "commercial" with "valuable". Something we learnt from the Collaborative
> Source discussions. This finalizes the most top level expression of the
> Principles/Definition.
  >
Yes, I think that's what we should talk about, "valuable use", it's
broader, more general than "commercial use".

> Help welcome to move on to a more detailed
> document, eventually formatted for IST application.
>
What type of document do you have in mind? A list of points and
explanations? Or some sort of an essay? Note that it may be a good idea
to link to Paul Johnson's Liberal Source Essay.

regards,
Henry

I don't think it is. It only allows you to copy and modify the source
code. It doesn't allow you to compile and run it though, apart from a
30-day trial period. That means you can't even compile it for
development purposes only.

Henry

Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> The license of "macstl" from Pixelglow dot com seems a fair source
> license. In their own words:
>
> "The license tries to balance the ideals of open source and the need to
> make a living from software." (http://pixelglow.com/macstl/license/)
>
> I was led to this license by reviewing quickly some past discussions on
> the OSI list where a person participated who I think is Pixelglow dot
> com--and I was lead to that reviewing from observing the recent
> discussion there from where I excerpted on a previous post here.
>
> So Pixelglow may know SDC already, but perhaps not with its current
> tendency of being more an umbrella for all fair source licenses than
> only one such.

The new mailing list seems to be working. Please move from the current
Yahoo! Groups mailing list to the new Open mailing list on the
softdevelcoop.org site.

> And good news: the URL is working again.

But it's very, very slow, at the point of timing out virtually all
management operations. I hope it's because DNS did not propagate enough
yet, not a host 'feature'!!!

Anyway, I was able to get indications that all addresses work well now,
so if the slowness is overcome we'll have mailing lists and file area
soon, and cut the dependency from Yahoo!

What shall the mailing list that will substitute the current one be called?

open@...
public@...
general@...
...

If nobody stops me I'll choose the first.

Also, I'll create an FTP area and user to host a copy of the Yahoo!
Groups site. Same structure, same content. An archive from where we may
pick things for the new site. Maybe also keep a public "historical
archive" link to it. Be prepared to help me make the copies. I think it
has to be done manually as Yahoo! Groups does not offer an API. Name for
this area and user:

oldsite.softdevelcoop.org
ygroup.softdevelcoop.org
yahoogroup.softdevelcoop.org
...

(I have no preference here.)

Thanks.

> I have looked at some of the licenses that were posted.
> Unfortunately, they did not have an arbitration clause. The Ada
> Developers Cooperative License (ADCL) does include one. I suggest
> that it's text or a modification thereof be added to the other
> licenses.  Otherwise, the small developer will NOT have the funds to
> enforce their license against a large company.
> Bob Leif

I agree and I think I had noticed and suggested this before, specially
if this "arbitration clause" is something to the effect that a loosing
third part pays the legal fees of a winning part which has released
under a fair source license. I've seen a couple of licenses with such a
clause. I'l try to locate them.

Also, one of the suggested objectives of the SDC was to offer legal
services to its associates. I would transput this to the Advanced
Software Licensing Foundation and make a budget entry for it in the IST
proposal.

I have looked at some of the licenses that were posted.
Unfortunately, they did not have an arbitration clause. The Ada
Developers Cooperative License (ADCL) does include one. I suggest
that it's text or a modification thereof be added to the other
licenses.  Otherwise, the small developer will NOT have the funds to
enforce their license against a large company.
Bob Leif

>       Although there is pain working with standard web tools, all of us are
> receiving an education on the potential market for web tools that work.

Yeah. I'm paying close attention to web tools in my current developing
baby, Mneson. Also, I take comfort in the thought that my troubles might
enrich my skills for that market.

Moving on, notice that my latest update to the website included a slight
but significant change in wording in the Principles: I replaced
"commercial" with "valuable". Something we learnt from the Collaborative
Source discussions. This finalizes the most top level expression of the
Principles/Definition. Help welcome to move on to a more detailed
document, eventually formatted for IST application.

And good news: the URL is working again. Moving on to try the mailing
list tool now.

Marius et al.,
       Although there is pain working with standard web tools, all of us are
receiving an education on the potential market for web tools that work.  For
instance, none of the web development tools that I have worked with
including XMLSpy provide error messages of the quality produced by GNAT.
       Bob Leif

       -----Original Message-----
    From: Marius Amado Alves [mailto:amado.alves@...]
    Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 8:17 PM
    To: softdevelcoop@yahoogroups.com
    Subject: [SDC] DNS things


       I'm trying to make the new system to work to its full potential,
namely
       including mailing list management. The thing is faulty, and I'm trying

       several DNS configurations. Currently I've made a DNS update at
       MyDomainDotCom and they say it can take up to 72 hours to effect.
       Yesterday or so I had replaced "URL forwarding" with CNAME DNS
entries.
       And the canonical URL stopped working. I don't know if the latest DNS
       update will make it work. Use the alternates:

       http://66.195.240.208/~softdeve
       http://www.jsp-host.net/~softdeve/

       I really find the registrar and DNS system a bad joke.



       ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

       +----- Software Developers Cooperative -----+
       |                                           |
       |     The future of software licensing!     |
       |                                           |
       +------------ softdevelcoop.org ------------+
       Yahoo! Groups Links

I'm trying to make the new system to work to its full potential, namely
including mailing list management. The thing is faulty, and I'm trying
several DNS configurations. Currently I've made a DNS update at
MyDomainDotCom and they say it can take up to 72 hours to effect.
Yesterday or so I had replaced "URL forwarding" with CNAME DNS entries.
And the canonical URL stopped working. I don't know if the latest DNS
update will make it work. Use the alternates:

http://66.195.240.208/~softdeve
http://www.jsp-host.net/~softdeve/

I really find the registrar and DNS system a bad joke.

The license of "macstl" from Pixelglow dot com seems a fair source
license. In their own words:

"The license tries to balance the ideals of open source and the need to
make a living from software." (http://pixelglow.com/macstl/license/)

I was led to this license by reviewing quickly some past discussions on
the OSI list where a person participated who I think is Pixelglow dot
com--and I was lead to that reviewing from observing the recent
discussion there from where I excerpted on a previous post here.

So Pixelglow may know SDC already, but perhaps not with its current
tendency of being more an umbrella for all fair source licenses than
only one such.

In fact this is even worst than "absurd" in certain cases. Let's take the
MySQL dual licensing business model (the one everbody tries currently to
copy as the only which proves to be some kind of effective and which allows
you to get some kind of license based revenue streams). We discussed it
previously this year with the MYSQL staff when revising their license
(http://lists.mysql.com/community/16). At least they now removed certain
abuses on the licensing page :
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/  or in the FAQ:
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/faq.html (For example, they
were explicitly mentionning at the beginning of this year that an internal
copy of a program with MySQL was considered as a distribution and then
subject to a commercial license! Gloups then if I make a CD from my dev
server to my test server and then to my prod server, was it considered as
an internal distribution?).

However there are still plenty of absurdities which are not "fair" at
all...Let's take an example:

- I am a developer inside a company and developed a nice enhancement (let's
say 10'000 lines of code) and want to contribute it to MySQL AB to avoid a
fork under GPL (let's say I made some kernel changes so I can not just put
it as a separate module on another web site).
- I (or my company) have to give to them full right to sub-license the
changes in order to be able to sell their "commercial" version. MySQL AB
does NOT accept any change under the GPL only. Only changes which grant to
them a full unlimited royalty-free sublicensing right are authorized (even
if they do not tell that loudly ;-) ), else of course they can not release
the commercial edition ayn more. As a developer, I will not get any
royalties, stock options or any other compensations for this work (or it it
decided on a case per case basis by MySQL AB - in all the cases, I have not
really the choice as I am not really in a position to discuss and they have
no obligation at all to pay me anything).
- If my company employs some external IT consultants, any copy of the
program transmitted to them will then be considered as a distribution and
then subject to the GPL. So my employer will still have to buy some
commercial versions of MySQL despite my 10'000 lines code contribution.
- Worse: If my company now wants to resell the developed program (not the
MySQL modification but the propietary program which has perhaps nothing to
do with MySQL specifically excepted that it using a relational database
through some JDBC driver), they will not be able to directly prepackage the
MySQL JDBC driver to ease customers installation (and perhaps indirectly
push them to use MySQL rather than another database and let them increase
their market niche). MySQL AB considers it as a viral effect. So my
customer will have to download and install himself the JDBC driver while
all the other database drivers will be prepackaged with some nice and easy
to use installation wizard.
- Worse, they were even speaking about requiring a commercial license if
you were calling, from your program, any MySQL interface (I do not know,
any class with some com.mysql.xyz in order to access to the underlying
database or access to a specific MySQL function. Briefly speaking if you
make a lookup in your codebase and you find some MySQL terms, you're done
like a rat). In such a case, they would consider your proprietary program
as being dynamically linked with MySQL and then not compliant any more with
the GPL. So if the employer really wants to avoid any risk, he would have
to buy a commercial license of MySQL for each version of the software he
was selling EVEN if the end-customer was, in practice, not using MySQL but
another database. Just crazy!

Of course this is theory and they never applied it. But they never changed
it too and who knows, one day, they will use it...

Sorry but according to me this is really what we call in French some
exercises of contorsionist with the GPL to hide the fact that this is, in
practice, a kind of "collaborative-cooperative-fair" license. So in such a
case, let's be honest and let's simplify the license and all the confusion
it may create for customers and resellers. But of course, in the MySQL
case, with their previous open source history and track records, this is
more complex to do... But for new programs with source provided, I can only
suggest one thing: Please stay away of the GPL if you want to resell one
day your program ;-))

Stéphane

At 11:59 08/12/2004, you wrote:

>I like Stéphane's essay published on Methods and Tools. It converges
>with previous essays and discussion by myself e.g. the article "Open
>Source Business Found Parasitic" (see SDC links). I like Stéphane's
>adjectivation as "absurd" of certain business models associated with
>open source licenses. I have called them "contorted", "parasitic." I
>like "absurd" very much. The following extract from the OSI discussion
>list to me seems a very good example of the absurdity.
>
>"However, due to the recent discussions of dual licensing, I may make
>two copies of the source code, one for each license.  That will allow
>users to be clear about which license terms they are expecting to
>accept.  It will also enable them to make any modification twice and
>be certain that their modifications are clearly also dually licensed."
>
>Note how the developers are *forced* (he says "enabled"!) to mantain two
>separate copies of the source.
>
>I envision a bit of patchwork, selecting parts of essays by all of us,
>to create the Advanced Software Licensing Project documents.
>
>
>
>
>+----- Software Developers Cooperative -----+
>|                                           |
>|     The future of software licensing!     |
>|                                           |
>+------------ softdevelcoop.org ------------+
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I like Stéphane's essay published on Methods and Tools. It converges
with previous essays and discussion by myself e.g. the article "Open
Source Business Found Parasitic" (see SDC links). I like Stéphane's
adjectivation as "absurd" of certain business models associated with
open source licenses. I have called them "contorted", "parasitic." I
like "absurd" very much. The following extract from the OSI discussion
list to me seems a very good example of the absurdity.

"However, due to the recent discussions of dual licensing, I may make
two copies of the source code, one for each license.  That will allow
users to be clear about which license terms they are expecting to
accept.  It will also enable them to make any modification twice and
be certain that their modifications are clearly also dually licensed."

Note how the developers are *forced* (he says "enabled"!) to mantain two
separate copies of the source.

I envision a bit of patchwork, selecting parts of essays by all of us,
to create the Advanced Software Licensing Project documents.

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the softdevelcoop
group.

   File        : /Software/Aryeh's Stuff/unittest.0.1.tar.gz
   Uploaded by : aryeh_friedman <aryeh_friedman@...>
   Description : simple unittest framework

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softdevelcoop/files/Software/Aryeh%27s%20Stuff/uni\
ttest.0.1.tar.gz

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

aryeh_friedman <aryeh_friedman@...>

>    http://softdevelcoop/cgi-bin/casbah/casbah.cgi

Aaaarrggg!"£$

       http://softdevelcoop.org/cgi-bin/casbah/casbah.cgi

* Good news *

Binary CGIs can execute (also) on the new host. I just hardtested this
by installing my CASBAH system there

    http://softdevelcoop/cgi-bin/casbah/casbah.cgi

(So, in theory nothing prevents installing a JVM if there is not one
already there.)

Note also that this URL is now resolving correctly to

    http://66.195.240.208/~softdeve/cgi-bin/casbah/casbah.cgi

Also working well is FTP, and the file persission setting via the
cpanel. That's what I've used to install the CASBAH.

What I particularly liked about this installation is that I just copied
the binary that I compiled a long time ago on a Linux system and that is
running on my Lab:

    http://www.liacc.up.pt/~maa/cgi-bin/casbah/casbah.cgi

* Not so good news *

I have not been able to put a mailing list working.

I took a look at CMSs Drupal, Mambo, Siteframe and PHPlist, and none of
them looked appropriate and most don't work well.

This license is of a later date than the Fair Source License. Aryeh and
I started working on it (calling it the Win-Win Public License back
then) in 2003 already.

Henry

Stéphane Croisier wrote:
  >
> FYI: http://opensource.org/licenses/fair.php
>
> So the "Fair License" terminology already exists and is OSI compliant (of
> course there are only three lines ;-) ).
>
> /SC

FYI: http://opensource.org/licenses/fair.php

So the "Fair License" terminology already exists and is OSI compliant (of
course there are only three lines ;-) ).

/SC

> Well, the domain was "jsp-host"...

I hadn't noticed!

But they have several account grades. Our account is a Puma. See the
specifications in atomic-hosting dot net.