> On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, I wrote: > > > Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and > > modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to > > distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization? > > It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD says "The program must > include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as > compiled form." > > What is your purpose in wishing to restrict distribution of the binaries? If > it is to provide a mechanism that guarantees purchase, then no OSS license > will do. But if it is to protect the name and reputation of the software, > then there are several avenues you can take to accomplish that.
Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee purchase. That is, purchase from Foo, Inc. and no one else (if you want to purchase software in the first place). But nothing's stopping you from getting the source and compiling it yourself. Is that a hard and fast no-no? ISTM that Section 2 is more concerned with source code (and downloadability, non-obfuscation, etc.) Why should restricting binaries be an issue if the source is 100% free? Re: Karsten and John's other thread, I did intend it as a patch license - that is, anyone could distribute the "official" source, but not the modified source as a whole. If they wanted to distribute their patches somehow, that would be fine. Thanks, Ned -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
