on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:38:41PM -0700, Ryan S. Dancey ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > This is the case of the Berkeley license, for example. The Berkeley
> > license is OSD-compliant. However, anybody who receives a legal copy
> > of code under the Berkeley license may redistribute it themselves
> > under different terms. In particular, the Berkeley license permits
> > binary-only redistribution.
>
> So my question remains: Is the OSD as written too specific regarding its
> requirement that the source code be commonly and easily available to
> recipients of the software?
>
> My opinion is that the OSD reflects the ethical position put forward by the
> champions of Free Software, and that it represents their intent as to what
> should and should not be considered "Open Source".
>
> I hate to sound like a nag, but I just can't reconcile "The program must
> include source code" with "a binary-only distribution is acceptable."
You're reading and quoting with difficulty.
For the second time today:
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
in source code as well as compiled information about form.
Again, the initial (OSD-compliant) distribution must include source.
The licensing terms must allow for distribution of source. The license
need not *compel* distribution of source. Following an OSD-compliant
distribution, downstream distributions may either be OSD-compliant or
not.
E.g.: releasing software with sources under the GNU GPL is OSD compliant,
and all downstream releases will be complaint.
E.g.: releasing software with sources under the MIT license is OSD
compliant, however downstream releases may or may not be compliant (the
MIT license doesn't compell source availability, however it *permits*
this).
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
PGP signature