compatibility and the OSD - final answer?

Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka at
Tue Sep 21 17:22:08 UTC 2004

HI Chuck,

That's for playing Answer Man in this dialogue...

On Sep 21, 2004, at 10:12 AM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>> C. You may:
>>     a) redistribute the unmodified source code freely under the terms 
>> of this license
>>     b) create binary versions of the original source code, which can 
>> be redistributed freely
>>     c) create modified versions, which can only be distributed in 
>> source form
>> How does that rate?
> OSD #2 says that redistribution of compiled binaries must be 
> permitted; OSD #3 says that modifications and derived works must be 
> permitted and the license must allow such modifications to be 
> redistributed, for OSD compliance.
> Taken together, clause "c" violates the OSD.

Okay, thanks, I think we're zeroing in on Bob's answer.  So, that 
implies to me:

1. An absolute prohibition on distributing non-compliant binaries would 
*fail* the OSD (and suck eggs)

2. A requirement that distribution of non-compliant binaries must 
include the original source code/docs/test-suite would *pass* the OSD 
(though still suck eggs)

Any disagreement?  Bob, does that answer your hypothetical question?

-- Ernie P.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list