UnitedLinux and "open source"

[Randy Kramer]

Ned Lilly wrote:
> OK, so there's no problem with prohibiting the (re)distribution of the binaries that *you* compile and brand?

I'm just a little hesitant to answer that, so I'll defer to someone
else.  (Not sure why, it sounds like the same issue I addressed just a
minute ago -- I guess I'm wondering whether the branded binaries can be
redistributed if all signs of the branding are removed.  Not sure about
that.)

Randy Kramer

> Thanks.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Kramer" <rhkramer at fast.net>
> To: "Ned Lilly" <ned at nedscape.com>
> Cc: <license-discuss at opensource.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: UnitedLinux and "open source"
> 
> > Ned Lilly wrote:
> > > Q: So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project?
> > >
> > > A: Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile their own binaries, but they will not be able to use the UnitedLinux brand.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Does that square with a) the GPL, and/or b) the OSI definition?
> > >
> > > I posed a similar question about restricting the distribution of binaries on this list several months ago, and got an earful.  Am I missing something?
> >
> > I'll try to avoid the earful:
> >
> > a) Yes.  You can charge for the binaries, or distribution of them, or
> > something like that.  You must make the source available, but you may
> > charge a reasonable distribution fee.  You can't prevent someone else
> > from compiling the source and distributing the binaries, and that other
> > person can charge for "their" binaries (they have the same right you
> > have) or distribute them for free.  Restricting the use of a brand or
> > trademark is an allowed strategy to differentiate your product from what
> > someone else may compile from the same source.  There are perhaps other
> > things I could mention, but hopefully, this is less than an earful ;-)
> >
> > b) Yes -- I think it is the same for the OSI, but there are more
> > licenses to choose from, so I'm not sure what I list above is exactly
> > the case for every OSI license.
> >
> > Note: I am neither an expert nor affiliated with the FSF or the OSI.  I
> > just thought I'd try to answer the question short and sweet (as a
> > layman), and let anybody correct me if I've gone drastically wrong.
> >
> > Randy Kramer
> > --
> > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> >
> >
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3