On Tue, 02 Dec 2003, Franck wrote: > The licence would not be so bad. The only restriction is about the > redistribution of binaries wich would be restricted. Windows binaries > distribution would be forbidden, but GNU/Linux (as well as GNU Hurd > and BSDs) binary distribution would be okay without restriction. Unfortunatly, this is not DFSG Free, as it would violates DFSG #6. It probably fails OSI's OSD as well [but you should really ask them for their opinion.] > We would like to write the most open-source friendly licence based on > the above terms, and we are open to any suggestion. Dual licencsing > is an option if we find a way to make evrything working. Perhaps you should rethink your company's rationale for these terms? Don Armstrong -- It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is smoking. -- Andrew Suffield in 20030403211305.GD29698@doc.ic.ac.uk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature