License Counseling

Greg Herlein gherlein at
Tue Aug 28 04:19:03 UTC 2001

> 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

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!


More information about the License-discuss mailing list