OpenLDAP license

[Karsten M. Self]

on Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:38:41PM -0700, Ryan S. Dancey (ryand at organizedplay.com) wrote:
> > This is the case of the Berkeley license, for example.  The Berkeley
> > license is OSD-compliant.  However, anybody who receives a legal copy
> > of code under the Berkeley license may redistribute it themselves
> > under different terms.  In particular, the Berkeley license permits
> > binary-only redistribution.
> 
> So my question remains:  Is the OSD as written too specific regarding its
> requirement that the source code be commonly and easily available to
> recipients of the software?
> 
> My opinion is that the OSD reflects the ethical position put forward by the
> champions of Free Software, and that it represents their intent as to what
> should and should not be considered "Open Source".
> 
> I hate to sound like a nag, but I just can't reconcile "The program must
> include source code" with "a binary-only distribution is acceptable."

You're reading and quoting with difficulty.

For the second time today:  

    The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
    in source code as well as compiled information about form. 

Again, the initial (OSD-compliant) distribution must include source.
The licensing terms must allow for distribution of source.  The license
need not *compel* distribution of source.  Following an OSD-compliant
distribution, downstream distributions may either be OSD-compliant or
not.

E.g.:  releasing software with sources under the GNU GPL is OSD compliant,
and all downstream releases will be complaint.  

E.g.:  releasing software with sources under the MIT license is OSD
compliant, however downstream releases may or may not be compliant (the
MIT license doesn't compell source availability, however it *permits*
this).

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20010410/d7c875e4/attachment.sig>