John, would you further clarify your point? I am unsure whether I understand the distinction you are making. An open source software license governs open source software. How did you splice this to get to Netscape 7.0? I can post part of Netscape's license, if necessary, but paragraph 5 (I think) raises exactly the point Alain raised (but with regard to the BSD). At issue is whether a developer can define their way out of open source by arguing that their product does not meet the definition. This is not the current purpose of the OSD so I am hopeful that I have misunderstood your point.
Rod On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, John Cowan wrote: > Alain =?iso-8859-1?Q?D=E9silets?= scripsit: > > > > Looking on OSI's web site, I see that BSD is OSI certified. > > > > However, one criteria for OSI certification is that: > > > > "Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there > > must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more > > than a reasonable reproduction cost�preferably, downloading via the > > Internet without charge." > > OSD #2 is different from the other requirements: it says what a product > must allow in order to be Open Source, rather than what the product's > license must allow. A binary-only distribution is not itself Open Source, > for the sufficient reason that it is not source at all, even if it was > built from Open Source (BSD, MIT, AFL, etc.) components. > > The MPL is an Open Source license, and Mozilla is an Open Source product, > but Netscape 7.0 is not an Open Source product, because not all of its > source is available to us, even though most of its source is licensed > under the MPL. > > -- > John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com > I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_ > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
