--- "Dominic J. Eidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just couldn't help enlightening cluebies.. > > On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Jeremy Hill wrote: > > > No. > > > > Diku license: > > > > -- No resale or operation for profit.
[SNIP] > > 1.5 does not _require_ a reasonable reproduction cost. It states that you > _may_ (but do not HAVE TO) charge a reasonable reproduction cost. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php From section 1 : "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. " The Diku license certainly does "restrict" people from selling the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution. Also, section 6 is a bit hazy as it states.. "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." As stated in the rational : "Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it." Which, since the Diku license expressly forbits profiting from distribution, or use of the Diku code (or derived works). I'm not sure how well these two would be compatable. On all other points I would agree that Diku is open source. However, these do tend to be deal-brakers as far as the OSI definition goes. ~Kender ===== -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version 3.1 GCS/L/C/O d-(+) s++: a-- C+++$>++++ UBLS++++$ P+++(--)$ L+++>++++ E--- W+>++$ N !o K? w(--) !O M- !V PS+ PE(++) Y+ PGP->+ t+ 5 X+() R(+) tv+@ b++(+++) !DI+++ D G(-) e>+++$ h---() r+++ y+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com
