Is this license open source?

[Seth David Schoen]

David Starner writes:

> I've been thinking about a license I've been tempted to use:
> 
> This program is under the GPL, v2. You may also use it under the XFree
> license as long as you aren't Theo de Raadt or Tom Christianson. *
> 
> I would guess that it's non-free, which leads me to the weird conclusion
> that adding further permissions to a free license can make it non-free.

The OSI has not made a statement on the distinction between a license and
a distribution practice.  The GPL has been certified as Open Source.
The XFree-Theo-Tom license has not been certified and likely would not be
(Distribution of License; No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups).  If
there continues to be no distinction made between the certification of
licenses and the certification of distribution practices, then that
software would just be considered dual-licensed, with one Open Source
license and one non-Open Source license.

-- 
                    Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>
      They said look at the light we're giving you,  /  And the darkness
      that we're saving you from.   -- Dar Williams, "The Great Unknown"
  http://ishmael.geecs.org/~sigma/  (personal)  http://www.loyalty.org/  (CAF)