On Dec 1, 2006, at 2:14 AM, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote:
Hello!
Hi...
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Chuck Swiger wrote:
http://www.ssh.com/support/downloads/secureshellserver/non-
commercial.html
contains both download URLs and "Non-commercial license agreement
for SSH Secure Shell for Servers" link.
Right, and the license restriction to non-commercial use only
means that SSH Secure Shell is not OSI Open Source, because it
violates OSD #6:
And I didn't say that it's the OSI Open Source. I wrote "(which
is also open-source)", not even "Open Source". So I didn't mean
that you can just copy&paste their sources into OpenSSH. [ ... ]
I quoted what you said in my prior message; you need not remind me of
your specific words.
Claiming to have an "open source" licensed codebase isn't of much
value if that codebase cannot be used freely. For example, if
someone wrote some software, and put it under the BSD license, yet
only released binaries without ever releasing the source code,
claiming that the software is under an "open source" license may be
technically true, but in practice is disingenuous and not especially
useful.
I'd really prefer that people not claim a license is "open source"
without submitting their license for consideration to the OSI board
via the <license-discuss@opensource.org> mailing list, and having it
be approved. While one may choose not to follow the process, doing
so means that you are choosing not to work with people who are pretty
good at evaluating licenses and making sure that those licenses are
well-drafted, legally consistent, and support the goals of the open
source community.
--
-Chuck
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
