[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Source only opensource licence.

On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 20:39, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> "Franck" <franck@ipconcept.com> writes:

> I think the best choice from a Free Software point of view would be
> two licenses: one that offers the no-binary-distribution license to
> everyone, and a separate license to distribute binaries which run only
> on GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurt, NetBSD, OpenBSD, or FreeBSD systems.

I think we can agree that "you may only distribute binaries for Linux"
would not be free. So that part of the dual-license is non-free

Source-only violates DFSG 2, "...as well as compiled form." and DFSG 4,
"...must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified
source code."

I don't believe what you've proposed is free, at least under the DFSG.

I'm curious, though, what do you think of my suggestion, in
	Message-Id:  <[🔎] 1070463407.18244.95.camel@bohr.local>
AFAICT, that is free, and achieves the same thing.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: