binary restrictions?

Ned Lilly ned at
Mon Oct 8 02:18:09 UTC 2001

"Karsten M. Self" wrote:

> Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications.
> not the "best form" of a work.  Specifically, they're not the
> for for making modifications" to the work.  Better to go with the
> form than the compiled form, where appropriate.  Likewise
> against obfuscated or machine-generated sources.

This was kind of my thinking in the original question; the license
we're contemplating would in fact make the source and binaries
freely available for personal or corporate use.  The source would be
freely redistributable as well in its "official" unmodified form.
We'd like to reserve the right to distribute binaries to ourselves
(for revenue-protection reasons), and we'd want to be the authority
"branding" the official release and approving patches.

I had thought/hoped that this approach would be reasonably palatible
to OSI since it preserved the source modifiability and
redistribution, which I think Karsten correctly identified as the
"best form."


license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list