OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

2001-09-25 Thread Forrest J. Cavalier III
Greg London [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part) It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes above and beyond #2 requirements. But the MIT license seems to fall short. OSD #2 seems to be setting a clear minimum requirement that source code must be

Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

2001-09-25 Thread Bruce Perens
Greg London [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part) It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then. An Open Source license is _not_ required to prohibit someone from making a version of the software that is closed source. And since someone can do that without changing the

Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

2001-09-25 Thread Greg London
Bruce Perens wrote: Both the MIT license and Public Domain fit under both the OSD and RMS's definition of Free Software, is it possible to take GPL'ed code, modify it, relicense it under a proprietary license, and distribute it only in binary form? my understanding is it is not possible.

Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

2001-09-25 Thread Rick Moen
begin Greg London quotation: I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. Since OSD #2 says the program MUST include source code There is nothing in the MIT license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition. Ahem. Nostalgic for freshman philosophy? It would be physically

Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

2001-09-25 Thread Matthew C. Weigel
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Greg London wrote: is it possible to take GPL'ed code, modify it, relicense it under a proprietary license, and distribute it only in binary form? my understanding is it is not possible. but MIT'ed code would allow this. Irrelevant. Is it possible to take APSL'ed

Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

2001-09-25 Thread Rick Moen
begin Matthew C. Weigel quotation: I also think that the OSD contributes to this misunderstanding - I think the wording of the introduction should be rewritten to not suggest the distribution terms have to meet the OSD, but the distribution terms or the distribution itself. Actually, I

Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

2001-09-25 Thread David Johnson
On Tuesday 25 September 2001 02:31 pm, Greg London wrote: I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. Since OSD #2 says the program MUST include source code There is nothing in the MIT license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition. Fine. I distribute an MIT licensed

Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

2001-09-25 Thread Russell Nelson
Rick Moen writes: The existence of a set of guidelines fortunately doesn't bar the Board -- or the rest of us -- from applying common sense. E.g., Sorry, but software without source code cannot be open source. Yup. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells