Possible OSI certification mark abuse

[Matthew Flaschen]

David K. Gasaway wrote:
> The OSI mark appears on the right.  The third paragraph is the text 
> "DM2 is free for noncommercial use, under the following EULA. Source is 
> released under the terms of the GPL license."  I can't make out whether 
> they are trying to claim the EULA only applies to their binaries, or 
> perhaps if this some pooly executed attempt at dual-licensing.  But I 
> can tell you that both licenses are included with the binary releases 
> as well as source releases.

Licensing only the source under the GPL isn't unprecedented, but I think
it's a bad idea.  It makes people unsure whether they can distribute
recompiled binaries under the GPL.  This case is even more ambiguous,
since the EULA isn't clear on whether it applies to binaries, source or
both.  There is no source-only distribution, so I think the OSI logo is
particularly misleading.  There's no way you can easily (there is an SVN
archive) download a completely Open Source version.

Matthew Flaschen