On 9/27/07, Bradley Hook bhook@kssb.net wrote:
Lastly, one fault of the argument presented in the original message is the ambiguity of the term "profit". The whole concept of open source involves many people contributing, and therefore everyone profiting. A profit is simply a gain of value, it doesn't necessarily have to be monetary.
Another problem is that for a license to be binding in court it must function as a contract. Depending on jurisdiction a contract may not be binding unless something of real value has been exchanged; ie. real estate contracts (used to?) usually include language to the effect of "the sale is for the amount of $1 and other valuable consideration" The main point of that was that a contract must be beneficial for both parties involved. A software license also might not be legally valid if it cannot be show to have "real" benefit for the issuer and the licensee. It may be difficult to prove how the general public has real benefit by restricting commercial use, though it can be easy to prove how it is beneficial to the issuer to limit other commercial use.
It's been several years since I took the requisite Business Law class at UMKC, and I sold the (huge) textbook the next semester, so my memory of contract law is getting a tad fuzzy.
Jon.