cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Tue Aug 28 04:00:42 UTC 2001
Greg Herlein scripsit:
> This cuts to the chase of a lot of the arguments among the open
> source and free software people lately. I think you
> mis-spoke: it may not be considered "Free Software" but it most
> certainly is open source.
I may be in error, but I did not misspeak.
> Fundamentallyu, if Daniel wants to release his code and/or docs
> under the license he described, then he should be able to IMHO.
Of course. He just can't [*] call his license either (IMHO) Open Source
> If the conditions are too burdensome for the distributions then
> they don't have to include it. They have the choice - they do
> not have to include it, any more than he has to license it in
> such a way that they can include it more easily.
Same story with Internet Exploder: it is freely redistributable
unchanged in binary form. It is not Open Source nor Free.
A distro could include it if it wanted to (say a Mac distro)
> Why should Daniel be pushed to release under a license other than
> what he wants? If it's his copyright (and/or he has releases
> from contributors) then let him do what he wants - it's his to
> make that decision.
He wanted to release under an OSI certified license that does
what he wants. That is self-contradictory.
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan at ccil.org
Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan
More information about the License-discuss