[License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing

[Richard Fontana]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:38 PM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:
>
> This sounds vaguely similar to MPL 2.0.

Or EPL.




>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:44 AM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
> >
> > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Russell McOrmond
> > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 6:40 AM
> > To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > About your separation of source and binary -- is the idea to not require "corresponding source" for a distributed binary, and to only have the copyleft principles apply to the distribution of source code?  Sounds interesting to me if you can get a lawyer on board and figure out a legally enforceable way to do it.  I suspect it won't be trivial.
> >
> >
> >
> > The separation of source rights from binary rights is a pretty common thing in the proprietary world.  I.e., license to source, but internal only, under NDA, right to modify but not distribute; license to binary includes right to distribute, although often with restrictions and/or payment of royalties or fees.  So a decent lawyer, with some software license agreement experience, would find the exercise perhaps not trivial but not exactly insurmountable.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Richard Fontana
He / Him / His
Senior Commercial Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.