compatibility and the OSD

[Ernest Prabhakar]

I at least see it as a matter of "conditions" vs "restrictions."

You are free to add a 'condition' that binaries must be accompanied by 
source, or attribution, or things like that.

You are not free to restrict what kinds of binaries can be distributed.

-- Ernie P.
IANAL, TINLA, etc. etc.

On Sep 22, 2004, at 12:49 PM, Bob Scheifler wrote:

> I wouldn't call that a meaningful restriction: Attribution is a
> (disclaimable) right automatically available to all copyright holders.
>
> The question is not about copyright law, it's about what the OSD does
> and doesn't require. Looking for what attribution restrictions are
> permitted by the OSD, I look to OSD#4, which only talks about permitted
> restrictions on *source* code, not on binary. The argument that has
> been made, as I understand it, is that my license it not permitted to
> place restrictions on which executables can be distributed. And yet,
> the Attribution Assurance License does precisely that. From an OSD
> perspective, I cannot see what the difference is.
>
> - Bob
>> I wouldn't call that a meaningful restriction: Attribution is a
>> (disclaimable) right automatically available to all copyright holders.
>
> The question is not about copyright law, it's about what the OSD does
> and doesn't require. Looking for what attribution restrictions are
> permitted by the OSD, I look to OSD#4, which only talks about permitted
> restrictions on *source* code, not on binary. The argument that has
> been made, as I understand it, is that my license it not permitted to
> place restrictions on which executables can be distributed. And yet,
> the Attribution Assurance License does precisely that. From an OSD
> perspective, I cannot see what the difference is.
>
> - Bob