----- Original Message ----- From: Chris F Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the > license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal > precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors. > Restricting the rights of others to make secret (and perhaps even > private) derived works is a right that copyright law has established > is within the authors domain. --> Speaking strictly for myself: secret derivatives of my software are ok with me - it's only when distribution comes to play a role that I would demand that distribution may be done to a selct group but never without publishing to the public. > Unless one can find specific reason why > it violates the open source (or free software) definition, I think > such a license should be considered open source (and/or free > software). Now, perhaps the privacy concern is sufficient to make the > license not free software. However, I don't think it violates the > open source definition--just my opinion again. --> What I currently have was taken from various licenses that already have been approved by the OSI board. If such clauses are deemed to violate the OSD, then it must be a matter of wording, not of principles. > -Chris Clark > > Again, a personal request: Please do not send me personal copies --> Check Kind regards, Abe Kornelis -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3