[tpoacher]

> The OpenFare License is a lot like the MIT License. The code can be modified, forked, reproduced, executed, and compiled without restriction by anyone. With two exceptions: > > Commercial users are subject to payment plans defined in code. > The license and payment plans can only be modified by the license copyright holder.

I like this idea in principle! Of course, enforcing it is another question altogether, but ... a step in the right direction, nonetheless.

Question, why does the payment plan appearing in the code rather than in the license make a difference? Assuming you're not allowed to distribute/modify etc without also including the license, does it matter where the payment plan is coded? Or am I missing the point here?

[rndhouse]

There are many advantages to defining the payment plan in code. Whether it's defined in the OPENFARE.lock file or the LICENSE file only matters for the sake of simplicity. The LICENSE needs to be the same across many packages so that it can be approved by lawyers once.

The idea is to put (very narrow) customizations of the terms in the OPENFARE.lock file.