Re: OpenTCP/http_server.c

Mark Butcher wrote:
> Hi David
> 
> Please read - 'all source code is distributed and may be modified in any 
> way by the user' - I was not aware that the words "open source" are 
> trademarked (I was told by many that it was suitable to describe the 
> fact, although none of these were lawyers...;-) ) but I will avoid using 
> these two world together in the future so that I don't have to study any 

Don't take my word for the "trademarked" point - after a little reading, 
it seems that the attempts to trademark "open source" failed as the term 
was too general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

It sounds from your mail here that you have a very good product, and a 
good way of licensing the software, and working with customers (both 
paying and non-paying).

My only problem was that the term "open source", and "open" in general, 
has a specific meaning - when it is used incorrectly, it confuses people 
and dilutes the meaning of the term.  In this case it was a simple 
misunderstanding - you come very close to the open source development 
model, but are missing a few vital steps (for good reasons - open source 
is certainly not the best model for all software).  There are cases of 
people misusing the terms intentionally to mislead people (the so-called 
"Open Office XML" pseudo-standard is a well-known example) - obviously 
that's not the case here.

What makes the difference with "open source" is that people can take the 
source code, modify it if they want, and distribute the code and their 
changes to other people.  To be "open source", there should not be any 
requirement that this distribution needs to involve the copyright owner, 
and that there are no restrictions on the use of the code (just as free 
speech must allow the freedom to make, for example, racist remarks - so 
open software cannot be censored in its use).

Of course, this would conflict with your desire to maintain tighter 
control of the code (for quality control, to restrict usage in certain 
markets, to control the ownership and copyright of the code, and of 
course to protect your commercial licenses that pay for your daily bread).

If you are interested, have a look at http://www.freertos.org/ .  They 
make three RTOS's for embedded systems.  They make "FreeRTOS", which is 
open source (and requires that users provide a link to the website in 
their documentation, and that they publish any changes made to the 
FreeRTOS code they distribute - requirements that are common for open 
source software, but not required).  Secondly, they sell commercial 
licenses for "OpenRTOS", which is virtually the same code as "FreeRTOS" 
but with a different license with no user requirements).  Thirdly, they 
have "SafeRTOS", which is a subset of "OpenRTOS" with much more testing, 
certifications, and warranties.  I'm not suggesting that this is the 
right model for you - just that it might be interesting to look at for 
comparison.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time clarifying your licensing - hopefully 
it will also be of use to others on this list, or people searching the 
archives in the future (that's the eternal hope of public mailing lists 
like this).

Best regards,

David






> legal details. We don't want to claim any agreements as defined by the 
> Open Source Initiative, that is why we don't state this - we do give 
> free code and free support to many individuals and educational 
> establishments: I personally spend on average several hours a day giving 
> free help (Email and sometimes telephone). This helps us to understand 
> the areas the project is used in any also to add the features most 
> requested, as well as solving any problems found (the more users giving 
> feedback the better the code...), which benefits all users, including 
> the commercial users, who do pay a contribution to use the code base in 
> their 'for profit' products as well as receiving preferrential support 
> for up to 1 year.
> 
> The uTasker has its own license which states that the code should not be 
> passed on to others without them first having agreed to the licensing 
> terms. The terms are mainly to ensure that we don't get sued by any user 
> who finds a bug in the code - liability clause - and things like, it may 
> not be used for development for "Products of war", land mines etc. - 
> this is in fact a requisit of Freescale since we have to ensure this use 
> is restricted according to our Freescale Allicance Partner agreement!
> 
> To summarise: if there are legal restrictions on using the words "Open 
> Source" to describe the form of the software I withdraw that and request 
> everyone to disgard any references to these words in preference to the 
> statement above. I hope that the this doesn't detract from the fact that 
> we do freely give several years of development work to anyone interested 
> in 'joining' the community.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mark
> 
> hhtp://www.uTasker.com
> 
> 
> David Brown schrieb:
>>
>>
>> I'm sure your stack is good software, and good value for money - but 
>> unless I am missing something major, it is completely wrong to 
>> describe it as "open source".  The term "open source" is a trademarked 
>> term with a specific definition, precisely to stop people calling 
>> their software "open source" and confusing users.
>>
>> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
>>
>> It is perfectly possible to provide software stacks as true open 
>> source, and make a business out of it (such as providing paid-for 
>> alternative licenses, or selling support contracts).  It is also 
>> perfectly possible to make a business selling non-open-source 
>> software.  But it is not reasonable to sell or even give away code 
>> with proprietary and restrictive licenses (no matter how reasonable 
>> and fair the license) and mislabel it as "open source".
>>
>> Since your website makes no claims that the software is open source, I 
>> assume this was just a typo in your post.
>>
>> I'm not trying to say there is anything wrong with your software or 
>> your license - it's just that for some users, the essential freedoms 
>> involved in true open source and/or free (as in speech, not as in 
>> beer) licenses are important.
>>
>> mvh.,
>>
>> David

---
[email protected]              Send a post to the list.
[email protected]        Join the list.
[email protected]    Join the list in digest mode.
[email protected]     Leave the list.