On 2004.01.24 17:24 Chuck Swiger wrote: > Richard Schilling wrote: > > I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written > > up. > [ ... ] > > One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution Restrictions and Obligations." > of your license fails to comply with OSD #1 & 2: > > "1. Free Redistribution > > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the > software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing > programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a > royalty or other fee for such sale.
Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product. In this respect there is no difference from my license. Under my license if a developer wants to release the code to you, and allow you to distribute, he/she can. The point is that the developer has the exclusive right to make that decision. > > 2. Source Code > > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source > code as well as compiled form...." If a developer chooses to not release their code, that's up to them, in which case I would not call the _software_ an Open Source product. However, the license is Open Source because it does not prevent the distribution of code - it simply requires the end user to get the code from the source that the developer approves of. If a developer says the product can be distributed through Sourceforge, then it can. > > See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. I read that very carefully. Richard ----- End Forwarded Message -----
