On Fri, 19 May 2000, Samuel Reynolds wrote:
> According to Bruce Perens, it qualifies as open-source, but
> has the same loophole as the Artistic License it derives from
> (supposedly, one could write a 5-line program and then sell
> the result).
Gee, everyone from BP to ESR to RMS keep telling
Also, the MPL define the source version as the "preferred form for making
modifications". We used this definition precisely to pick up setting like you
describe. So the MPL would work fine if you like the license.
When we wrote the MPL, we adopted this idea (of source as the preferred form for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, every license I have looked at so far makes the assumption that
> the application has "binary" and "source" versions.
I think that there is no problem under any open-source license, since
in no case is binary distribution compelled; it is simply allowed provi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have a JavaScript application that people are able to download and use
> for free.
>
> The current license is a bit of a made-up-on-the-spot mess and I would like
> to convert to an Open Source license.
>
> However, every license I have looked at so far makes the
I have a JavaScript application that people are able to download and use
for free.
The current license is a bit of a made-up-on-the-spot mess and I would like
to convert to an Open Source license.
However, every license I have looked at so far makes the assumption that
the application has "binar
5 matches
Mail list logo