on Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 10:18:09PM -0400, Ned Lilly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications. They're > > not the "best form" of a work. Specifically, they're not the > > "preferred for for making modifications" to the work. Better to go > > with the source form than the compiled form, where appropriate. > > Likewise proscriptions against obfuscated or machine-generated > > sources. > > This was kind of my thinking in the original question; the license > we're contemplating would in fact make the source and binaries > freely available for personal or corporate use. The source would be > freely redistributable as well in its "official" unmodified form. > We'd like to reserve the right to distribute binaries to ourselves > (for revenue-protection reasons), and we'd want to be the authority > "branding" the official release and approving patches. > > I had thought/hoped that this approach would be reasonably palatible > to OSI since it preserved the source modifiability and > redistribution, which I think Karsten correctly identified as the > "best form."
You're repeating your previous proposition, so I'll repeat the problem: these terms don't allow distribution of derived (binary) works, and violates condition 3. You can do this. It won't be approved by the OSI (speaking as a non-member of the OSI). You can repeat your proposition as many times as you'd like (this has been tried before on the list, which is among the reasons I'm being a bit testy), it doesn't change the facts. Modify your planned terms, or modify your expectations of OSI approval. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
msg00099/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature