License Counseling

[Greg Herlein]

> Of course.  He just can't [*] call his license either (IMHO) Open Source
> or Free.

Perhaps not Free.  Why not open source?  You can read, modify,
and redistribute the source.  The only caveat is that you have to
send the author a copy of the changes?  Come on!  What's not free
abotu that?  Contrast that with merely making your changes back
available to everyone - what's the difference?  Cotrast that with
the Apache license that prevents you from calling your derived
work Apache.  What's the difference?  The author is making a
restriction. 

So, you think the restriction is too bothersome so it is not open
source?  Huh?

> 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)
> nevertheless.

No, not same story.  No source.  No rigt to derive.  No right to
redistribute.  Totally different.  Apples and Oranges.

> He wanted to release under an OSI certified license that does
> what he wants.  That is self-contradictory.

See above.  

What exactly are the criteria to get approaval as an OSI
license?  That it is not too bothersome for distributors?  

Please.  Say it ain't so!

Greg