OpenLDAP license

[Karsten M. Self]

on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 04:22:48PM -0700, Ryan S. Dancey (ryand at organizedplay.com) wrote:
> What does clause #6 mean?  What is "due credit"?  I could argue that "due
> credit" is a crisp US$100 bill, mailed to my home address.

I agree this clause is vague.  However, I would interpret it to mean
"acknowledgement".  Though whether this would be akin to the old BSD
advertising clause is uncertain.  Not that this violates OSD. 

> There's nothing in the license that says the code and derivative works
> therefrom must be governed exclusively by the license.  (All you have
> to do is provide a copy of the license.  You don't necessarily have to
> follow the license.)

See also the IBMPSL.  Not a requirement for OSI certification.

> The license does not require that the source code be distributed with
> binaries.  (That means it doesn't comply with OSD #2.)

Wrong.  OSD #2 requires that the license *allow* source distribution.
It doesn't *mandate* source distribution.

> Ryan
> 

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010409/bb9cb6f9/attachment.sig>