From: Gordon Paynter <gordon.paynter@uc...> - 2002-03-29 00:58:55
On Thursday 21 March 2002, Daniel Chudnov <dchud@...> wrote:
> "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor"
> so... it's hard to imagine they'd stand a chance at "Open Source
> Definition Conformance", for what that's worth.
Yes. IANAL, but I think it is clear that SiteSearch is not Free
Software in the pure sense. However, I think that given the likely
audience (i.e. non-comercial libraries) the license is reasonable.
> Arguably one of the best potential uses of the software would be for
> a for-profit third party entity that might wish to develop and sell
> support services, no?
No. That would be "in connection with" commercial use. By definition:
C. "Commercial Use" means any use of the Source Code in connection
with an activity which generates revenue, including, but not
limited to, revenue received on only a cost recovery basis.
Actually, since my (academic, not-for-profit, university) library
"generates revenue" by fining people for bringing their books back
late, wont setting up a SiteSearch service for my libarary require a
I assume this isn't what the license intends; it is merely what it
The really odd thing about the license, in my opinion, is all the
carry-on about the Project Website. As far as I can tell, there's
nothing forcing me to use their website for anything: I guess those
clauses are just advertising.
In fact, I could even set up my own web-site. Except for the other
oddity: from what I can tell, licensees are not alllowed to distribute
binaries at all--only the source code (maybe I'm missing something).
So I couldn't create a SiteSearch Debian package or RedHat RPM, for