> Of course. He just can't [*] call his license either (IMHO) Open Source
> or Free.
Perhaps not Free. Why not open source? You can read, modify,
and redistribute the source. The only caveat is that you have to
send the author a copy of the changes? Come on! What's not free
abotu that? Contrast that with merely making your changes back
available to everyone - what's the difference? Cotrast that with
the Apache license that prevents you from calling your derived
work Apache. What's the difference? The author is making a
restriction.
So, you think the restriction is too bothersome so it is not open
source? Huh?
> Same story with Internet Exploder: it is freely redistributable
> unchanged in binary form. It is not Open Source nor Free.
> A distro could include it if it wanted to (say a Mac distro)
> nevertheless.
No, not same story. No source. No rigt to derive. No right to
redistribute. Totally different. Apples and Oranges.
> He wanted to release under an OSI certified license that does
> what he wants. That is self-contradictory.
See above.
What exactly are the criteria to get approaval as an OSI
license? That it is not too bothersome for distributors?
Please. Say it ain't so!
Greg
