On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 20:39, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > "Franck" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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: <[🔎] email@example.com> AFAICT, that is free, and achieves the same thing.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part