binary restrictions?

[John Cowan]

Karsten M. Self scripsit:

> It's not clear whether or not condition 1 implies that all
> modifications and derived works must be freely distributable, 

The MIT and BSD licenses make no such demand.  GPL != Open Source.

> > Anyone could redistribute
> > the "official" source (but *not* modified source).  
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This expressly violates condition 3.

Not.  Licenses that only permit patch distribution can be Open Source.

-- 
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
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3