-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andi Payn wrote:
>>>Let me start with the specific question: Frodo (a C64 emulator) allows you >>>to use, distribute, etc. Frodo binaries and source code, and to use >>>Frodo's source in a compatibly-licensed larger work (anything >>>non-commercial). > >>So there are restrictions on distribution of non-modified packages. This >>violates the first requirement for OSI's open-source definition: >>http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > > Where in that paragraph did you see any restrictions on distribution of > non-modified packages? > I may have taken "(anything non-commercial)" in your paragraph to apply to redistribution, in light of the fact that there is such a restriction (the $5 rule), where you may only have been referring to the "larger work" aspect. > Now, the $5 rule that appears later may well be a violation of OSI rule 1 or > FSF freedom 2, but I want to make sure that this is you replying out of > order, not me missing something vital. > > >>>But you can't distributed a modified version of Frodo itself. > > > This is the question I was most interested in. Given a package with a similar > license, but without the $5 rule--in particular, if you were allowed to > distribute unmodified source and binaries freely (at any charge), and you > were also allowed to use any part of the source code (or binary, where that > makes sense) in any other work, and you were allowed to include it as part of > an aggregate product, but you were not allowed to distribute a modified > version of the original, would that be (according to Mandrake) open > source/free/acceptable? > No, violates OSI rule 3. At present the OSI requirements are probably the best test for Mandrake, since there isn't a comprehensive policy (as Debian has). The problem is that if we were to find a bug in the software which crashes a machine and causes data loss, but aren't allowed to fix it, why would we want to distribute such software? Having the source to software which you distribute is useless if you cannot fix bugs and distributed the fixed software. For private use, it may be sufficient, but then this discussion would be off-topic on this list. > (Since IANAL either, I don't quite know how you distinguish between using > pieces of the source in a different project vs. distributing a modified > version of the original project. Which is a good reason not to try to write > your own restrictions that prevent one use and not the other. And yet, > developers try anyway.) > > >>>Is this appropriate for contribs? >> >>No, it's not free software (it seems more like shareware), > > > Shareware means software that you have to pay to use. Not necessarily. Shareware typically means that under certain conditions (non-commercial use, trial period) you may ue the software without paying for it, but under other conditions (commecial use, extended use etc) you may either not use it, or must pay. Most "freeware" allows redistribution of binaries commercially, which is why I would consider this shareware as opposed to freeware. > You don't have to pay to > use Frodo. You don't have to pay to distribute it. You don't have to pay to > get or distribute the source code. You don't have to pay to pay to use pieces > of the source code in other open source projects. No, not open-source (which you can sell), non-commercial (which you can't). Huge difference!!! > So I don't see how this is > anything like shareware. You do need permission to use pieces of the source > code in commercial works, but then the same is true of anything under the > GPL. > GPL doesn't allow proprietary (well, anything but GPL) works, but it doesn't prevent you from selling anything. Regards, Buchan - -- |--------------Another happy Mandrake Club member--------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/CYLorJK6UGDSBKcRAhbmAJ0fNilj99hEd4rx0sWSnUpF6jEJggCcDK4o gGPUNE0tetzVwD+UI/H1KTE= =zU38 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ****************************************************************** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. ******************************************************************
