"Guilherme C. Hazan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Really? I thought that open-source meaned that the guy can see and change
> the source, but not related to distribution. So, all OSI approved licenses
> state that the distribution is completely free?

No.  All OSI approved licenses state that if you distribute the code
to somebody else, you can not put restrictions on what that person
does with the code.  That is, distribution need not be free--you can
charge for a copy.  But redistribution must be unrestricted--once
somebody buys a copy, that person can give it to the rest of the

Look at the OSD:
Section number 1.

> And what about different targets, e.g., sources and binary? Can we make the
> sources open-source but the binaries not? Does this makes sense?

No, you can not make that restriction.

> I don't understand why there are so many licenses, if the open-source
> specification is so rigid.

I don't really understand it either.  I mean, I know how we got here
step by step, but looking at the situation now it doesn't make much

> Our idea is to make all these new parts as open-source (i mean, sources are
> available to use and enhance, but not to distribute) only for people that
> subscribe, and only during subscription duration (one year that can be
> renewed).

Sources which may not be distributed are not open source.  I strongly
suggest that you not use that term.

> The main idea is to keep the sources open-source, but not the binaries. Is
> this possible with any of the OSI licenses?

No.  See OSD #3.  A binary is a derived work of the sources, and as
such may not be specifically restricted.

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to