EULA and Modifed BSD

[Matthew Flaschen]

David Woolley wrote:
> Norman Young wrote:
>> Thanks to all of you who replied.  We ended up checking with a lawyer
>> and it turns out that for the specifics of our case, some kind of EULA
>> that sits on top of the New BSD is required to disclaim certain
>> exceptional aspects of our software.
> 
> In that case you won't have an OSI approved licence, and it is arguable
> that you won't have an open source licence, as it fairly fundamental
> feature of open source licences that end users are also potential
> distributors.

Just saying you have a EULA means absolutely nothing.  We would need to
read the EULA to make any meaningful claim about it.  It could say,
"Besides the normal BSD rights, if you distribute the program, COMPANY
will give you $10,000!"  That's still a EULA, but it's also OSD-compliant.

So it's correct that your BSD+EULA won't be OSI-approved, but it /may/
be OSD-compliant.

As a note, the reason binary Firefox has a EULA is to deny you the right
to distribute the binary.  The Firefox EULA is neither OSI-approved nor
OSD-compliant.  That's also why the source code version does not have a
EULA (except for the logos).

Matt Flaschen