ned at nedscape.com
Wed Oct 3 04:17:15 UTC 2001
> On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, I wrote:
> > Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
> > modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
> > distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
> It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD says "The program
> include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as
> compiled form."
> What is your purpose in wishing to restrict distribution of the
> it is to provide a mechanism that guarantees purchase, then no OSS
> will do. But if it is to protect the name and reputation of the
> then there are several avenues you can take to accomplish that.
Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee purchase. That is, purchase from
Foo, Inc. and no one else (if you want to purchase software in the
first place). But nothing's stopping you from getting the source
and compiling it yourself. Is that a hard and fast no-no?
ISTM that Section 2 is more concerned with source code (and
downloadability, non-obfuscation, etc.) Why should restricting
binaries be an issue if the source is 100% free?
Re: Karsten and John's other thread, I did intend it as a patch
license - that is, anyone could distribute the "official" source,
but not the modified source as a whole. If they wanted to
distribute their patches somehow, that would be fine.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss