binary restrictions?

[Karsten M. Self]

on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 10:48:26PM -0400, John Cowan (cowan at mercury.ccil.org) wrote:
> Karsten M. Self scripsit:
> 
> > It's not clear whether or not condition 1 implies that all
> > modifications and derived works must be freely distributable, 
> 
> The MIT and BSD licenses make no such demand.  GPL != Open Source.
> 
> > > Anyone could redistribute
> > > the "official" source (but *not* modified source).  
> >                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > This expressly violates condition 3.
> 
> Not.  Licenses that only permit patch distribution can be Open Source.

My read for "modified source" was "as a whole, or additions to same".
It's a restriction on derivative works.  If it's a patch license,
there's a possibility.  My strategic assessment holds:  the policy is
sorely misguided.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?              Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                    Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!  http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                      http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- 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/20011002/9b79017d/attachment.sig>