On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:17 pm, Ned Lilly wrote: > Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee purchase. That is, purchase from > Foo, Inc. and no one else (if you want to purchase software in the > first place). But nothing's stopping you from getting the source > and compiling it yourself. Is that a hard and fast no-no?
Yes, that is a hard and fast no-no. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with doing it your way, but it won't be Open Source. One rule of thumb that I use (and it isn't necessarily an accurate rule) to determine open-sourcedness, is whether I can sell a CD containing the source code, modifications and binary, without having to ask anyone. > ISTM that Section 2 is more concerned with source code (and > downloadability, non-obfuscation, etc.) Why should restricting > binaries be an issue if the source is 100% free? Quick answer: Because not everyone has a compiler. Slightly longer answer: because Open Source allows me to distribute derivative works, and a binary is a derivative of the source code. -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3