<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
Wo hier gerade so begeistert Lizenzen diskutiert werden, was meint
ihr zu diesem Vorschlag?<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<h2><span class="mw-headline">Intent of the license </span></h2>
<p>This section is meant to clarify the spirit of the license.
</p>
<p>The intent of the license is to offer an alternative to open
source software as specified by the OSI open source definition
with the aim to generate revenue for charity.
Software licensed under the CSL can be made available in source
code but there is no obligation to do so, unless the open source
variant OSCSL is chosen. The software is made available with
guarantees about the use of revenue generated by software sales.
The license will include a list of trusted third parties,
usually non-profit organizations, who can sell software
licensed under the CSL.
Depending on country of residence this may require two entities:
a for-profit business and a foundation or other non-profit
organization as its owner.
A group of authors cannot sell their own software under the CSL
without first
becoming a Licensor (a trusted reseller) in the sense of the
license. The rationale is that the CSL is intended as a
unique selling point for software licensed under the CSL and
arbitrary software authors are not
expected to reliably handle the financial resources in the
intent of the license. Thus the CSL can
increase the trustworthiness of authors without any
disadvantages for software authors who mean
to take the CSL seriously. Licensors in the sense of the license
require external auditors,
as, for instance, the Deutsche Zentralinstitut für soziale
Fragen (dzi.de).
A share of the generated revenue can, within predefined limits,
be used to develop the software.
The recipient of revenue shares is the maintainer. The
maintainer can distribute funding,
hire contractors, fork the project or pass on the office of
maintainer to another person.
The office of maintainer is meant to allow a software
development process similar to that of the open source
community, although slightly less inclusive.
</p>
<a name="Compatible_licenses" id="Compatible_licenses"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Compatible licenses </span></h3>
<p>The CSL is intended to allow use of software components
licensed under <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License"
class="external text"
title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License"
rel="nofollow">LGPL License</a>, <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses"
class="external text"
title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses"
rel="nofollow">BSD License</a>, <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License"
class="external text"
title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License"
rel="nofollow">Apache License</a> or <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License"
class="external text"
title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License"
rel="nofollow">Mozilla Public License</a>.
</p>
<a name="Dual_licensing" id="Dual_licensing"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Dual licensing </span></h4>
<p>A software author can make his work compatible with the CSL by
dual-licensing the work. A program licensed under the GPL and
the CSL can,
for instance, be used under the terms of the GPL but can be
incorporated into a derivative work licensed under the CSL. The
program is consequently available as
open source software but can be used for charitable purposes to
generate revenue as part of a derivative work.
Many other open source licenses do not require a dual licensing
option because they are fully compatible with the CSL.
</p>
<a name="Recommendation:_GPL.2BCSL" id="Recommendation:_GPL.2BCSL"></a>
<h5> <span class="mw-headline"> Recommendation: GPL+CSL </span></h5>
<p>There is a conceivable synergy between the GPL and the CSL that
deserves independent attention: A GPL-licensed parent project
can to a degree discourage competitors: because a very similar
program is available as free software, making a very similar
program or derivative work is a less likely goal for a
commercial developer. At the same time CSL-licensed derivatives
can give additional meaning to the GPL-licensed parent project.
Thus the recommendation for open source authors considering to
support the CSL is to choose GPL+CSL as their license.
</p>
<a name="Alternative_dual-licensing_options"
id="Alternative_dual-licensing_options"></a>
<h5> <span class="mw-headline"> Alternative dual-licensing
options </span></h5>
<p>Dual-licensing with any other open source license is useful,
even if it may have only symbolic value.
You can dual-license a program under BSD+CSL for instance, which
doesn't change the licensing conditions in any way, because the
BSD license allows proprietary use, but you endorse the CSL
license by mentioning it.
</p>
<a name="Philosophy" id="Philosophy"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Philosophy </span></h4>
<p>The difference in philosophy between CSL and open source in a
nutshell is that <span class="external text">CSL is about
prevention while open source is about creation</span>.
</p>
<a
name="Terms_and_conditions_for_use.2C_reproduction_and_distribution"
id="Terms_and_conditions_for_use.2C_reproduction_and_distribution"></a>
<h2> <span class="mw-headline"> Terms and conditions for use,
reproduction and distribution </span></h2>
<a name="Definitions" id="Definitions"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Definitions </span></h3>
<dl>
<dd> "Maintainer" shall mean the individual or Legal Entity
identified as the initial developer or an individual or Legal
Entity appointed (in writing) by the previous Maintainer as
the current Maintainer.
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use,
reproduction, and distribution as defined by this document.
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "Licensor" shall mean any entity authorized by the License
that is granting the License to a consumer or would be
permitted to grant the License to a consumer.
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "Licensee" shall mean an individual or Legal Entity
exercising permissions granted by this License.
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity
and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are
under common control with that entity. For the purposes of
this definition, "control" means (i) the power, direct or
indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity,
whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty
percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii)
beneficial ownership of such entity.
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making
modifications, including but not limited to software source
code, documentation source, and configuration files.
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
transformation or translation of a Source form, including but
not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,
and conversions to other media types.
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source
or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated
by a copyright notice that is included in or attached to the
work (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source
or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work
and for which the editorial revisions, annotations,
elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an
original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License,
Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable
from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,
the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
the original version of the Work and any modifications or
additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is
intentionally submitted to a Licensor for inclusion in the
Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal
Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner.
For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" means any
form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to
the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited
to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code
control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed
by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose of
discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication
that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in
writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "Contributor" shall mean any Licensor and any individual or
Legal Entity on behalf of whom a Contribution has been
received by any Licensor and subsequently incorporated within
the Work.
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd> "License Steward" shall mean the Legal Entity that is
defined as the License Steward under the identically named
section of the License.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="License_grants" id="License_grants"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> License grants </span></h3>
<a name="Evaluation_grant" id="Evaluation_grant"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Evaluation grant </span></h4>
<dl>
<dd> For the purpose of evaluating the Work each Contributor
hereby grants the Licensee a limited non-exclusive and
non-transferable right of use for his Contributions to the
Work in order to make use of the Work for up to one month
without interruptions or new beginnings. Each new version of
the software can be evaluated anew under the evaluation grant.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Contributor_grant" id="Contributor_grant"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Contributor grant </span></h4>
<dl>
<dd> Subject to third party intellectual property claims, each
Contributor hereby grants the Licensee a non-exclusive and
non-transferable right of use for his Contributions to the
Work in order to make use of the Work, provided the Work has
been purchased from a Licensor.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Licensor_obligations" id="Licensor_obligations"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Licensor obligations </span></h3>
<a name="Revenue_from_purchases" id="Revenue_from_purchases"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Revenue from purchases </span></h4>
<dl>
<dd> The Licensor accepts the obligation to provide appropriate
funding for further development of the Work to the Maintainer,
which shall not constitute more than 10% of the revenue from
purchases of the Work. The Licensor accepts the obligation to
refuse funding to a project if the use of funding has not been
made sufficiently transparent or is seen as inappropriate
according to published policies of the Licensor. The Licensor
accepts the obligation to use at least 95% of the remaining
revenue from purchases of the Work for charitable purposes.
The Licensor accepts the obligation to document use of
financial resources derived from purchases of the Work to the
general public and to employ an external auditor to validate
the use of financial resources derived from purchases of the
Work.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Pricing" id="Pricing"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Pricing </span></h4>
<dl>
<dd> The Licensor accepts the obligation to sell the Work for no
less than the prices determined by the Maintainer. A
preliminary default for price deductions is that residents of
developing countries receive a deduction of 2% for each step
in the Human Development Index their country of residence is
below position 127.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Discontinuation" id="Discontinuation"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Discontinuation </span></h4>
<dl>
<dd> The Licensor retains the right to sell the Work under the
License only while the Maintainer of the Work and the License
Steward both endorse the Licensor. The right to sell the Work
can be terminated either by the Maintainer or by the License
Steward at any time.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Distribution_obligations" id="Distribution_obligations"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Distribution obligations </span></h3>
<a name="Source_distribution" id="Source_distribution"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Source distribution </span></h4>
<dl>
<dd> Parts of the Work that have been received in Source form
can be distributed in Source form, unless otherwise specified
by the Maintainer or the Licensor. Distribution in Source form
does not constitute a right of use for the Work in Object form
for the recipient.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Distribution_of_Modifications"
id="Distribution_of_Modifications"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Distribution of Modifications </span></h4>
<dl>
<dd> Derivative Works that the Licensee creates or to which the
Licensee contributes are governed by the terms of this
License. The Maintainer of Derivative Works remains the
original Maintainer of the Work, unless the Maintainer agrees
to share or to transfer the office in writing.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Versions_of_the_license" id="Versions_of_the_license"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Versions of the license </span></h3>
<a name="License_Steward" id="License_Steward"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> License Steward </span></h4>
<dl>
<dd> The License Steward is [ ... to be determined ... ] and may
publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time
to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version
number. No one other than the License Steward has the right to
modify this License.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Effect_of_new_versions" id="Effect_of_new_versions"></a>
<h4> <span class="mw-headline"> Effect of new versions </span></h4>
<dl>
<dd> The Licensee may choose to use the Work under the terms of
the version of the License under which the Licensee originally
received the Work or any subsequent version of the License
published by the License Steward.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Multiple-licensed_code" id="Multiple-licensed_code"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Multiple-licensed code </span></h3>
<dl>
<dd> If the Work is available under other licenses the Licensee
is free to choose the License as the governing contract and to
terminate other licenses only if the Work has been purchased
from a Licensor.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Disclaimer_of_warranty" id="Disclaimer_of_warranty"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Disclaimer of warranty </span></h3>
<dl>
<dd> The Work is provided by the Licensor ``as is´´ and any
express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to,
the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose or non-infringement are disclaimed, except
to the extent that these disclaimers are held to be legally
invalid. In no event shall the Licensor be liable for any
direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or
consequential damages (including, but not limited to,
procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use, data
or profits; or business interruption) however caused and on
any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict
liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising
in any way out of the use of the Work, even if advised of the
possibility of such damage.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Headings_not_controlling" id="Headings_not_controlling"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Headings not controlling </span></h3>
<dl>
<dd> The headings in this License are for reference purposes
only and shall not be construed as a part of the License.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Variants" id="Variants"></a>
<h2> <span class="mw-headline"> Variants </span></h2>
<a name="CSL_Freemium" id="CSL_Freemium"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> CSL Freemium </span></h3>
<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/freemium"
class="extiw" title="wikipedia:freemium">freemium</a> variant
offers a CSL or GPL+CSL licensed version for free
(or for a CSL minimum licensing fee)
but an advanced version of the program or advanced features
require a commercial license.
</p>
<p>If the source is released as open source at the same time the
Maintainer should make it clear
that open source releases should not try to rebuild the features
of the program that are
only available with a commercial license (unless this is
tolerable).
Users are free to make such changes and even to release them to
the general public but should
be aware that this could be seen as impolite and may motivate a
change of the business model.
</p>
<a name="CSL.2F75" id="CSL.2F75"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> CSL/75 </span></h3>
<p>The CSL/75 allows the development team to retain up to 25% of
the revenues. The purpose is to accomodate developers who would
be scared away by the prospect of donating 90% of their
revenues. The use of the money must follow the established
policies of the Licensor (the reseller) as in the standard
version.
</p>
<a name="CSL.2F50" id="CSL.2F50"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> CSL/50 </span></h3>
<p>The CSL/50 allows the development team to retain up to 50% of
the revenues. The purpose is to extend the CSL/75 and to allow
licensing fees for commercial third party software components
included with the Work or Derivative Works. The additional 25%
of the revenues must be used solely for licensing fees of such
software components and must follow the established policies of
the Licensor (the reseller). A Licensor could, for instance,
regulate what constitutes inappropriate licensing fees.
</p>
<a name="Open_source" id="Open_source"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Open source </span></h3>
<p>An open source variant (OSCSL) could change the section "Source
distribution" to:
</p>
<dl>
<dd> The Licensor makes the Work available in Object form and in
Source form. The Licensee is granted the right to distribute
the Work or Derivative Works in Source form to third parties.
Distribution in Source form does not constitute a right of use
for the Work in Object form for the recipient.
</dd>
</dl>
<a name="Electronic_Publishing_Charity_Source_License_.28EPCSL.29"
id="Electronic_Publishing_Charity_Source_License_.28EPCSL.29"></a>
<h3> <span class="mw-headline"> Electronic Publishing Charity
Source License (EPCSL) </span></h3>
<p>An "electronic publishing" version of the CSL could allow an
author to release a book, a piece of music or another work under
a license similar in goal to the CSL.
An important difference is that a published work is likely to be
completed and not to require maintenance.
</p>
<p>A single author could be eligible to receive 10% of the
revenues of his works or up to 30%, if below $3500/month.
Furthermore an author could be eligible to consume up to 30% of
the revenues of his works for future projects at the average
rate of previous payments over the last 5 years (or less, at the
author's option) if revenues of currently sold works fell below
the average rate of previous payments.
</p>
<p>Wikibooks could be treated like software projects and be
published under the original CSL, not the EPCSL. That could put
the PDF form under the CSL while the original Wiki source code
would remain available under whatever license was used for the
form (e.g. <a href="http://wiki.laptop.org/go/GFDL"
title="GFDL" class="mw-redirect">GFDL</a> or <a
href="http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Creative_Commons"
title="Creative Commons">Creative Commons</a>).
</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>