Slashdot Mirror

The Zesiger License already does this. From the FAQ:

This license is intended only to serve the purposes enumerated in paragraph one, it's not designed to do anything else. Not everyone needs or wants all the features of other licenses - For example, there may be a fine company someday that offers warranties for it's software.

Yes, you may add whatever clauses you feel is necessary to supplement this license, even if you were not the original producer of the work. However, you may not change the license itself, and you will have to accept the fact that subsequent licensees may want to add their own clauses.

If a conflict arises, hopefully the parties involved will resolve it themselves. If not, Zesiger Inc. will arbitrate the disagreement and deliver a verdict that best preserves the intent of the license. This license can handle any negative situation that arises, while still giving the users of the license as much freedom as they need to make it work in the wide variety of circumstances that could exist in a commercial or non-profit enterprise.

BSD licenses are great, but they don't work for everyone. There's a good comparison of the different licences at the zesiger license page: Zesiger License

Here's the quick version, copied from the website:

The Zesiger License aims to fill the gap between the GPL and the BSDL, by combining the best features of both, which are briefly listed below:

The GPL is by far the most popular, and one of the most debilitatingly restrictive of the open source licenses. It's occasionally used for open source versions of commercial software, since it allows companies to release source code to their customers, without allowing them to use the code in competing products.

• Does not permit incorporating into proprietary products
• Stifles innovation by making improving products unprofitable
• Ensures derivative works will also be open source
• Prevents commercial competitors from using your sources

The BSDL is an excellent license for hobby-type projects that hope to attract the attention of a business that might want to commercialize it. It's less popular than the GPL, but it's the least restrictive of the ones compared here. It's almost entirely unsuitable for commercial software though, since it relinquishes nearly all rights - It does nothing to protect commercial interests.

• Permits incorporating into proprietary products
• Encourages innovation by making improving products potentially profitable
• Does not ensure that derivative works will also be open source
• Does not prevent commercial competitors from using your sources

This license has the best features of the BSD and GPL licenses rolled into one. Open source projects released under this license will remain open source, while still providing ample time for innovators to keep their improvements proprietary until they are rewarded for their work.

• Permits incorporating into proprietary products
• Encourages innovation by making improving products potentially profitable
• Ensures derivative works will also be open source
• Prevents commercial competitors from using your sources

The intent statements are interesting too:

To give enough rights to innovators that they may profit from improvements that they make to open source products, while ensuring that their work eventually becomes available to other innovators, so they are able to do the same, for the benefit of the end-users.

To ensure that no court or other politically influenced body shall ever have any authority over the products released under this license.

To prevent the rapid changes in laws from having any meaning to the innovators and end-users of products released under this license.

Hopefully this new Indian license will try to protect the nature of open source while freeing people to do as they please with it the way the Zesiger License tries to.

Maybe if the Dylan community created a killer IDE with a really high-quality implementation, it might still take off...

Have you seen Functional Developer? It's a commercial windows IDE from Functional Objects, and it's recently been open sourced. From zesiger.com's blurb on FunDev:

Also known as FunDev, this is a popular, commercial Windows IDE for Dylan that has just recently been made free to the public. There is talk that it could be open-sourced soon (18 June 2004). It is still being actively developed by the same people who are working on the Gwydion Dylan compiler.

Looks like the blurb is a bit outdated since it's already been open sourced...but anyways, did you know about FunDev when you made a call for a "really high-quality" IDE from the Dylan community?

Of course, besides FunDev, there's Gwydion Dylan, a nice commandline compiler for unix/linux.

Dylan seems like a possible alternative to C++. Here's some more Dylan resources for those who want to look into the language a little further.

And who exactly, when they've spent years working on a project on nothing more than blood sweat and tears ... is going to allow a company to come in, fork their code, write their own extensions, and keep them locked up ad infinitum?

You do actually have to read the license before you can say that it allows companies to take your code and "lock it up". BSD allows code to be locked up permanently, Zesiger does not. That's a crucial difference.

The GPL version of open source is not going to work, especially if you want an entire system from thousands of different vendors to be 100% open source. It's hard enough to get industry-wide standards adopted WITHOUT requiring everyone to give their products away for free.

The only thing that will work is to either reinvent the wheel from scratch, in your own country, under communism, and hope you'll succeed where no one else has. (China seems to be making progress).

-OR-

Come up with an open source license that doesn't take away control of finished products from companies who haven't yet had a chance to earn a profit from their work

The GPL doesn't work, it requires immediate release of source that can be used by competitors or would-be customers, and eliminates the profit motive.

The BSD license doesn't work because it doesn't require the release of source.

The only license I know of that might work is the Zesiger License because it allows companies to use open source in their products, and keep their source closed (like BSD) for two years before they're required to release the source (like GPL).

Two years of marketing and sales ought to be enough time for most companies to earn a profit on their work. The end result will be that instead of having two factions, Stallman and his followers, and Gates and his followers, with a fence in the middle, you end up with the two factions cooperating, and using each other's work to produce great products.

Isn't that the real goal anyway?

It's a shame no one uses a BSD-style license that's time-limited. That way, companies could do their proprietary thing, make their money, and only release their source after they've already milked their products for what they're worth.

The Zesiger License is the only license I know about that seems to achieve the goals of both the GPL and BSD licenses.

here's commerce-friendly license that could serve as a "commercial GPL" - Zesiger License

"...using a 1 pixel transparent GIF for a web site spacer graphic, which you _should_ know how to avoid doing by now, anyway, if you're anything resembling a well-informed web developer."

The Pixel - Reloaded details a novel technique for layering a stretched 1 pixel transparent gif over a CSS background image, and then applying an image map to it to create the illusion that elements underneath the stretched gif were clickable links. So, there are still uses for transparent 1px gif's, but just not in for layout.

Here's a license that preserves some of the Open Source philosophy of the GPL, without strangling anyone - http://www.zesiger.com/license/ - Basically, it gives absolute freedom, as in beer and otherwise, for a period of time that allows people to do as they please before being required to release the source.

I'm not an open source zealot, though I do recognize where it's valuable. I think it's safe to say that "consumer" closed source software is typically better than the open source alternatives. Opera is a great example of this. It's closed source, and miles ahead of any other browser - Yes, even Mozilla Firefox.

Now, I think the best mail client out there is Mozilla Thunderbird...so far, I haven't found a commercial product I like better - Opera's M2 mail client really sucks. Other than Thunderbird, I can't think of any "consumer" open source software that's better than the commercial versions.

Maybe we should do an "Ask Slashdot" for the best-of-class consumer open source software. I'm sure there's more out there that I don't know about, especially in games.

I think the GPL really stifles commercial contributions to software. It gives rights to a "thing" (the software), when really, it should probably be more concerned with encouraging the production of better software. In a perfect world, it would be profitable for companies to produce open source products. In some cases it is, but despite what the fanatics say, it's not that way for everything.

I'm digressing a bit, but let me plug the Zesiger License as an alternative to any other open source license. It allows people to earn a return on their software, before being required (GPL-style) to release the source code to their products. Note that this license could easily be applied to any other intellectual property, not just software.

I've been trying to get my dad to use it (with threats like, "when the russian mafia gets your credit card because you were using IE, don't complain to me"...)

Show him the browser warning. Each phrase is linked to a news article describing the things like the poor guy from the UK who got prison time after someone hacked into his IE and used his computer to trade child porn. It happens a lot more than people think, and all because people won't stop clicking the E icon. Having the Russian mafia take over your computer isn't just an idle threat, it's a daily reality for IE users. This is one case where FUD can and should be used, because it's 100% true, and you're literally saving lives.

If I were you, I'd take stronger measures than just "asking" your dad to stop using IE. Tell him the way it's going to be. This really isn't something to fool around with, your dad could have federal agents interrogating him about his ties to terrorism...

Of course, use tact whenever possible. It's your dad, so maybe you'd be better off buying him a shiny new Opera web browser and saying "happy birthday!".

This browser warning page thoroughly trashes MSIE, but every phrase is linked to a news article that uses the exact same verbiage in order to demonstrate that it isn't just anti MS FUD - It's the honest truth. It's designed and maintained for webmasters to deliver to the IE-using visitors to their webpages. You can read the source code for some more information about that. In case you're curious, here's a paste of the text and links that it has - This should prove quite effective with anyone you're trying to convince to stop using IE:

Your web browser - a version of Microsoft Internet Explorer - may not function properly on this website, and could have a large number of problems that allow hackers to hijack it with viruses. These viruses could be used by criminals to secretly take over your computer, download child-pornography, or to commit acts of terrorism and fraud. You may automatically update it now with Microsoft's available patches, however, there is a possibility that a necessary patch will not be available due to Microsoft's somewhat sluggish development schedule.

The US Department of Homeland Security strongly suggests that you stop using Internet Explorer immediately.

There are several standards-compliant web browsers that you may use instead of Internet Explorer. Please install one of them as a replacement.

• Opera [Download Now]
• Mozilla [Download Now]
• Netscape [Download Now]
• K-Meleon [Download Now]

If you suspect that your computer is already being used for criminal activity, it is critical that you seek help from a computer professional in your local area. You may also try one of the free web-based virus scanners that are available.

The browser warning at http://www.zesiger.com/browserwarning.html spells out the dangers of using IE...some of this may become irrelevant if MS makes a serious commitment to improving IE. Opera is quite a long ways ahead of both Mozilla and IE, yet for some reason, it doesn't get a lot of mentions. Certainly though, neither browser has the vast set of problems that IE has.

I've found Opera to be quite impressive. Take a look at this screenshot. Opera's UI is fully customizable. The default UI is much less intimidating for the average joe. This screenshot shows how hard one can make Opera work. I should also mention that FireFox's UI can't be streamlined like Opera's can, so, I have a preference for Opera.

Actually, most poorly designed websites that still look good IE, will look good in Opera too. FireFox isn't quite as good at that as Opera. The point is rather moot though, since IE is truly dangerous, and any other browser on the market is vastly superior - be it FireFox, Netscape, Opera, or whatever. No one on my network is allowed to use IE, except on MS sites that will only work with IE.

The GPL's popularity is what causes this chasm between commercial vendors and Open Source. In a way, the GPL's belligerent and iron-fisted stance on Open Source has encouraged closed source by drawing an uncrossable line between that which is GPL and that which is not. The OpenBSD project's goals appear to be a rare negative reaction to the GPL. They aim to keep their project open source, but without any of the GPL's heavy-handedness.

If people started converting their Commercial/GPL projects to a license like this one then they could release their products as open source after they've already earned a return from the market, thereby greatly diminishing the unfair advantages a competitor would get by simply repackaging and tweaking someone else's brand-new, cutting-edge code.

The Zesiger License is a license that addresses this. It allows an open source project to be commercialized for 2 years before being required to release the source openly. This provides a healthy lead over competitors that simply want to tweak and repackage someone else's commercial products, without doing any R&D, or other risky investment of their own.

During that two years, a business could package their source for their clients under another license, such as the GPL, which will prevent the code from being used by competitors while allowing legitimate customers to hack the code.

There need not be such a huge gap between commerce and open source. I'm not sure why no one seems to think about this much. It's not necessarily an all or nothing kind of thing.