Karsten M. Self
kmself at ix.netcom.com
Wed Oct 3 02:58:37 UTC 2001
on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 10:48:26PM -0400, John Cowan (cowan at mercury.ccil.org) wrote:
> 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.
My read for "modified source" was "as a whole, or additions to same".
It's a restriction on derivative works. If it's a patch license,
there's a possibility. My strategic assessment holds: the policy is
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss