UnitedLinux and "open source"

[Randy Kramer]

Ned Lilly wrote:
> Q: So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project?
> 
> A: Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile their own binaries, but they will not be able to use the UnitedLinux brand.
> 
> --
> 
> Does that square with a) the GPL, and/or b) the OSI definition?
> 
> I posed a similar question about restricting the distribution of binaries on this list several months ago, and got an earful.  Am I missing something?

I'll try to avoid the earful:

a) Yes.  You can charge for the binaries, or distribution of them, or
something like that.  You must make the source available, but you may
charge a reasonable distribution fee.  You can't prevent someone else
from compiling the source and distributing the binaries, and that other
person can charge for "their" binaries (they have the same right you
have) or distribute them for free.  Restricting the use of a brand or
trademark is an allowed strategy to differentiate your product from what
someone else may compile from the same source.  There are perhaps other
things I could mention, but hopefully, this is less than an earful ;-)

b) Yes -- I think it is the same for the OSI, but there are more
licenses to choose from, so I'm not sure what I list above is exactly
the case for every OSI license.

Note: I am neither an expert nor affiliated with the FSF or the OSI.  I
just thought I'd try to answer the question short and sweet (as a
layman), and let anybody correct me if I've gone drastically wrong.

Randy Kramer
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3