Re: Source only opensource licence.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 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.
Indeed. A license "for GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, NetBSD, OpenBSD, or FreeBSD
systems" would exclude GNU/KFreeBSD and GNU/KNetBSD, for example :-)
Reply to: