On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:38 PM Kevin P. Fleming <[email protected]> wrote: > > This sounds vaguely similar to MPL 2.0.
Or EPL. > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:44 AM McCoy Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: License-discuss <[email protected]> On > > Behalf Of Russell McOrmond > > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 6:40 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About your separation of source and binary -- is the idea to not require > > "corresponding source" for a distributed binary, and to only have the > > copyleft principles apply to the distribution of source code? Sounds > > interesting to me if you can get a lawyer on board and figure out a legally > > enforceable way to do it. I suspect it won't be trivial. > > > > > > > > The separation of source rights from binary rights is a pretty common thing > > in the proprietary world. I.e., license to source, but internal only, > > under NDA, right to modify but not distribute; license to binary includes > > right to distribute, although often with restrictions and/or payment of > > royalties or fees. So a decent lawyer, with some software license > > agreement experience, would find the exercise perhaps not trivial but not > > exactly insurmountable. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > License-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -- Richard Fontana He / Him / His Senior Commercial Counsel Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
