BSD+1 License

[Stefano Vincenzi]

Bani ha scritto:

> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Stefano Vincenzi
> <s_vincenzi at lavabit.com> wrote:
>> ..and if a license simply states: "(...), therefore binary-only  
>> distribution
>> is not allowed/granted" would that still be an Open Source license?
>
> The point of an open source license is telling people what they *can*
> do and under what conditions, since the user is already in the
> situation in which he can't do anything because of copyright law if
> there isn't a license, so that is why they rephrase that saying
> something like "in order to distribute in the binary form you must
> also supply the source code".
> But considering the open source definition I guess that sentence is
> fine (depending on what is on there "(...)").

Probably the revised clause...

> Anyway this discussion won't lead anywhere because there is very
> little chance of having your license approved.

Why? In layman's terms I won't publish and am not very willing to  
collaborate in projects using the BSD license because it "allows free- 
loaders" and the GPL is "full of legaleze, tl;dr" even when I consider  
both license helpful in some cases.