[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a JavaScript application that people are able to download and use
for free.
The current license is a bit of a made-up-on-the-spot mess and I would like
to convert to an Open Source license.
However, every license I have looked at so far makes the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, every license I have looked at so far makes the assumption that
the application has "binary" and "source" versions.
I think that there is no problem under any open-source license, since
in no case is binary distribution compelled; it is simply allowed
Also, the MPL define the source version as the "preferred form for making
modifications". We used this definition precisely to pick up setting like you
describe. So the MPL would work fine if you like the license.
When we wrote the MPL, we adopted this idea (of source as the preferred form
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Samuel Reynolds wrote:
According to Bruce Perens, it qualifies as open-source, but
has the same loophole as the Artistic License it derives from
(supposedly, one could write a 5-line program and then sell
the result).
Gee, everyone from BP to ESR to RMS keep telling me
4 matches
Mail list logo
