remco47 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 21 19:50:00 UTC 2009
So, basically what you want is a copyleft-license that allows
binary-only distribution. You want the source code to be distributed
under the same license, but the binary is considered a different work.
It's like a source-only GPL.
Note that this has absolutely no compatibility advantages to the GPL.
This proposed license is incompatible with everything except itself,
just like the GPL. You're just as arrogant and altruist-abusing (not
my words). I see no real permissive values here, except that companies
can take the code and distribute a binary under another license. Is
that really what you want?
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Jeremy C. Reed <reed at reedmedia.net> wrote:
> "Note, however, that in a single source file it is typically very
> difficult, and often completely infeasible, to determine which parts of
> such a file are covered by permissive terms."
Luckily, that's where revision history comes in.
More information about the License-discuss