Hi there,
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Ben Cotton
wrote:
> I'm curious as to the intent of this clause. If you're distributing the
> software binary-only and not making source code available, then it's not
> open source regardless of whether that clause is included. If you are
> providing so
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Engel Nyst wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 07:44 AM, Zluty Sysel wrote:
> > "Reverse engineering, decompilation, and/or disassembly of software
> > provided in binary form under this license is prohibited."
>
> I'm wondering why you want this clause. Is the software in sou
I'm curious as to the intent of this clause. If you're distributing the
software binary-only and not making source code available, then it's not
open source regardless of whether that clause is included. If you are
providing source code, then what is the clause intended to prevent (i.e.
why would a
On 01/16/2015 07:44 AM, Zluty Sysel wrote:
> "Reverse engineering, decompilation, and/or disassembly of software
> provided in binary form under this license is prohibited."
I'm wondering why you want this clause. Is the software in source form
available under BSD or do you intend to make it avail
On Friday 16. January 2015 13.44, Zluty Sysel wrote:
> I was wondering if adding a clause to prevent reverse engineering to the
> standard 3-clause BSD license would violate any of the open source
> definition tenets.
>
> The additional clause would read something like this:
>
> "Reverse engineer
Hi there,
I was wondering if adding a clause to prevent reverse engineering to the
standard 3-clause BSD license would violate any of the open source
definition tenets.
The additional clause would read something like this:
"Reverse engineering, decompilation, and/or disassembly of software
provi
6 matches
Mail list logo
