<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I am not sure I understand what you
mean. I explicitly require that if people have received a copy of
the binary, then they can receive a copy of the source code at no
more than copying cost. Now, people could indeed decide to add
additional license terms to request that one pays some kind of
extra charge for the binary, but I did not and that's what matters
as far as OSD compliance is concerned. Isn't it ?<br>
<br>
Otherwise, I have to ask again : both the BSD and the MIT licenses
permit one to charge for source code by adding extra terms. Should
they be declared OSD-incompatible ?<br>
<br>
On 09/25/2012 06:23 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5061DA83.4010908@perens.com" type="cite">Oh,
come on Thorsten. The license permits a charge for source code
that isn't related to the cost of copying. You know full well that
is not in compliance with OSD #1 and will never be seriously
considered.
<br>
<br>
On 09/25/2012 04:31 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Bruce Perens dixit:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I'm afraid you missed "The license shall
not require a royalty or other fee for
<br>
such sale" in the Open Source Definition.
<br>
</blockquote>
His draft does not require one. (In fact, the draft is neutral
on that
<br>
issue.)
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org">License-review@opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>