Ned Lilly wrote: > OK, so there's no problem with prohibiting the (re)distribution of the binaries that >*you* compile and brand?
I'm just a little hesitant to answer that, so I'll defer to someone else. (Not sure why, it sounds like the same issue I addressed just a minute ago -- I guess I'm wondering whether the branded binaries can be redistributed if all signs of the branding are removed. Not sure about that.) Randy Kramer > Thanks. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Randy Kramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Ned Lilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:20 PM > Subject: Re: UnitedLinux and "open source" > > > Ned Lilly wrote: > > > Q: So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project? > > > > > > A: Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not >freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile their >own binaries, but they will not be able to use the UnitedLinux brand. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Does that square with a) the GPL, and/or b) the OSI definition? > > > > > > I posed a similar question about restricting the distribution of binaries on >this list several months ago, and got an earful. Am I missing something? > > > > I'll try to avoid the earful: > > > > a) Yes. You can charge for the binaries, or distribution of them, or > > something like that. You must make the source available, but you may > > charge a reasonable distribution fee. You can't prevent someone else > > from compiling the source and distributing the binaries, and that other > > person can charge for "their" binaries (they have the same right you > > have) or distribute them for free. Restricting the use of a brand or > > trademark is an allowed strategy to differentiate your product from what > > someone else may compile from the same source. There are perhaps other > > things I could mention, but hopefully, this is less than an earful ;-) > > > > b) Yes -- I think it is the same for the OSI, but there are more > > licenses to choose from, so I'm not sure what I list above is exactly > > the case for every OSI license. > > > > Note: I am neither an expert nor affiliated with the FSF or the OSI. I > > just thought I'd try to answer the question short and sweet (as a > > layman), and let anybody correct me if I've gone drastically wrong. > > > > Randy Kramer > > -- > > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > > > > > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
