binary restrictions?

[Karsten M. Self]

on Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 10:18:09PM -0400, Ned Lilly (ned at nedscape.com) wrote:
> "Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> 
> > Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications.  They're
> > not the "best form" of a work.  Specifically, they're not the
> > "preferred for for making modifications" to the work.  Better to go
> > with the source form than the compiled form, where appropriate.
> > Likewise proscriptions 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."

You're repeating your previous proposition, so I'll repeat the problem:
these terms don't allow distribution of derived (binary) works, and
violates condition 3.

You can do this.  It won't be approved by the OSI (speaking as a
non-member of the OSI).

You can repeat your proposition as many times as you'd like (this has
been tried before on the list, which is among the reasons I'm being a
bit testy), it doesn't change the facts.

Modify your planned terms, or modify your expectations of OSI approval.

Peace.

-- 
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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20011008/70e79aad/attachment.sig>