Ryan S. Dancey
ryand at organizedplay.com
Tue Apr 10 05:38:41 UTC 2001
> This is the case of the Berkeley license, for example. The Berkeley
> license is OSD-compliant. However, anybody who receives a legal copy
> of code under the Berkeley license may redistribute it themselves
> under different terms. In particular, the Berkeley license permits
> binary-only redistribution.
So my question remains: Is the OSD as written too specific regarding its
requirement that the source code be commonly and easily available to
recipients of the software?
My opinion is that the OSD reflects the ethical position put forward by the
champions of Free Software, and that it represents their intent as to what
should and should not be considered "Open Source".
I hate to sound like a nag, but I just can't reconcile "The program must
include source code" with "a binary-only distribution is acceptable."
What is the point of Open Source then?
Is Microsoft Windows open source? If you're one of Microsoft's 1,000
biggest customers, they'll give you the source code to Windows. Sure, 60
million people don't have the source, but some people do, and that seems
sufficient to comply with this interpretation of OSD #2.
More information about the License-discuss