[License-review] Request for Approval : Modular Open-source Software License (MOSL)

[Hadrien Grasland]

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 ?

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 ?

On 09/25/2012 06:23 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
> 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.
>
> On 09/25/2012 04:31 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> Bruce Perens dixit:
>>
>>> I'm afraid you missed "The license shall not require a royalty or 
>>> other fee for
>>> such sale" in the Open Source Definition.
>> His draft does not require one. (In fact, the draft is neutral on that
>> issue.)
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120925/10c11a9f/attachment.html>