Why "open-source" means "free to distribute"?

[Fabian Bastin]

Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
>>Just read carefully their page:
>>http://www.gluecode.com/website/html/prod_licensing.htm
>>
>>ESL: Enterprise Source License
>>
>>OSL: OEM Source License
>>
>>None is an OSI approved license. In particular, the Enterprise Source
>>License is certainly not open-source since it does not allow to
>>distribute modified versions.
>>
>>It is not the first time that the term "open-source" in used with a
>>different meaning of the OSI definition.
> 
> 
> Sure, but why the OSI logo at the main page???

Good question... I did not notice it!

> Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at the main
> page? That could make my users happy. ;-D

Alex Rousskov is right that we say that we do not know exactly what is 
the OEM license. It could be an open source approved license, but I 
wonder why do not use the original name then. I jump too quickly to 
conclusions, sorry.

We learn a bit more at
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0405gluecode.html

Part of their product come from the Apache project, whose code is 
open-source and should normally remain open-source. We don't know the 
exact license terms for the rest of their product, when you buy the OEM 
License.

It would be interesting to ask them for more details. But to my opinion, 
such a practice is certainly not the best one...

Fabian

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3