Re: Source only opensource licence.
Josselin Mouette <josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org> writes:
>> 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.
>>
>> >From the GNU/Linux point of view, the licence is like GPL. Only windows
>> and other non free operating system would be restricted. For them, the
>> licence is like QMail's licence.
>
>> 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.
>
> It is quite difficult to make a software free, but only for some use.
> Well, this is often non-free.
>
> If there are enough Windows-specific bits, you might want to license the
> *nix version under the GPL, and the windows version under a qmail-like
> license.
You could license just the windows bits under any GPL-incompatible
open source license. That would disallow binaries containing those
bits of code. Since the Linux version would only need the GPL parts,
binaries would be allowed there. It could be difficult to prevent
binaries for commercial Unixes that way, though.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se
Reply to: