Quoting "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications. They're
> not the "best form" of a work. Specifically, they're not the
> "preferred
> for for making modifications" to the work. Better to go with the
> source
> form than the compiled
"Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications.
They're
> not the "best form" of a work. Specifically, they're not the
"preferred
> for for making modifications" to the work. Better to go with the
source
> form than the compiled form, where appropriate.
Steve Lhomme wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Greg London" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Steve Lhomme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:30 PM
> Subject: Re: binary restriction
Steve Lhomme scripsit:
> Are you sure of that ? When you compile you USE the code not MODIFY it.
> There's no derivation.
Yes, we're sure. Compiling code is equivalent to translating text from
one language to another, and translations are a paradigm case of
derived works.
A derived work need
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> That makes good sense. But in this case, why is their different rules
> for source code and binary versions of a work in most open-source
> licenses ? I mean if it's a derived work, the rules applied are the
> same one of a derived work.
1. Because binar
- Original Message -
From: "Greg London" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Lhomme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: binary restrictions?
| Steve Lhomme wrote:
| > | A binary is a d
Steve Lhomme wrote:
> | A binary is a derived work.
>
> Are you sure of that ? When you compile
> you USE the code not MODIFY it.
> There's no derivation. Otherwise using
> a software and changing the default
> settings would be a derived work...
source code is text that follows the
rules of g
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ned Lilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: binary restrictions?
| Ned Lilly writes:
| > Is anyone aware of
- Original Message -
From: "David Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ned Lilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: binary restrictions?
| On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:17 pm, Ned Lilly
Ned Lilly writes:
> Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
> modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
> distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
A binary is a derived work. An open source license has to allow
distribution of bina
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 th
> On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, I wrote:
>
> > Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
> > modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
> > distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
>
> It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OS
Karsten M. Self scripsit:
> It's not clear whether or not condition 1 implies that all
> modifications and derived works must be freely distributable,
The MIT and BSD licenses make no such demand. GPL != Open Source.
> > Anyone could redistribute
> > the "official" source (but *not* modified
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, Ned Lilly wrote:
> Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
> modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
> distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD sa
Hello all,
Apologies if this question has been covered before. I haven't been
on this list for many months.
Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
S
15 matches
Mail list logo
