david at usermode.org
Wed Oct 3 04:38:50 UTC 2001
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:17 pm, Ned Lilly wrote:
> 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?
Yes, that is a hard and fast no-no. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with
doing it your way, but it won't be Open Source.
One rule of thumb that I use (and it isn't necessarily an accurate rule) to
determine open-sourcedness, is whether I can sell a CD containing the source
code, modifications and binary, without having to ask anyone.
> 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?
Quick answer: Because not everyone has a compiler. Slightly longer answer:
because Open Source allows me to distribute derivative works, and a binary is
a derivative of the source code.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss