Karsten M. Self scripsit: > It's not clear whether or not condition 1 implies that all > modifications and derived works must be freely distributable,
The MIT and BSD licenses make no such demand. GPL != Open Source. > > Anyone could redistribute > > the "official" source (but *not* modified source). > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This expressly violates condition 3. Not. Licenses that only permit patch distribution can be Open Source. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
