Hi there, On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Ben Cotton <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm curious as to the intent of this clause. If you're distributing the > software binary-only and not making source code available, then it's not > open source regardless of whether that clause is included. If you are > providing source code, then what is the clause intended to prevent (i.e. > why would anyone reverse engineer the binaries of they already have the > source)? > Apologies for the misunderstanding, this was a mistake. I have however sent an email to the same mailing list asking a broader question about the implications of imposing restrictions to the files that are generated as a result of compiling the source code covered by an open source license. Zluty > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
