Quoting Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications. They're
not the best form of a work. Specifically, they're not the
preferred
for for making modifications to the work. Better to go with the
source
form than the compiled form, where
- Original Message -
From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ned Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: binary restrictions?
| On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:17 pm, Ned Lilly wrote:
|
| Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Steve Lhomme wrote:
That makes good sense. But in this case, why is their different rules
for source code and binary versions of a work in most open-source
licenses ? I mean if it's a derived work, the rules applied are the
same one of a derived work.
1. Because binaries
Steve Lhomme scripsit:
Are you sure of that ? When you compile you USE the code not MODIFY it.
There's no derivation.
Yes, we're sure. Compiling code is equivalent to translating text from
one language to another, and translations are a paradigm case of
derived works.
A derived work need
Steve Lhomme wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Greg London [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Steve Lhomme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: binary restrictions?
| Steve Lhomme wrote:
| | A binary is a derived work.
|
| Are you
Karsten M. Self wrote:
Because compiled works are less favorable for modifications.
They're
not the best form of a work. Specifically, they're not the
preferred
for for making modifications to the work. Better to go with the
source
form than the compiled form, where appropriate. Likewise
Ned Lilly writes:
Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
A binary is a derived work. An open source license has to allow
distribution of
Hello all,
Apologies if this question has been covered before. I haven't been
on this list for many months.
Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, Ned Lilly wrote:
Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD says
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 03:04 pm, I wrote:
Is anyone aware of a license which permits source access and
modifications, patch contributions, but restricts the right to
distribute compiled binaries to the sponsoring organization?
It wouldn't be Open Source. Section 2 of the OSD says
On Tuesday 02 October 2001 09:17 pm, Ned Lilly wrote:
Yeah, it kind of *is* to guarantee purchase. That is, purchase from
Foo, Inc. and no one else (if you want to purchase software in the
first place). But nothing's stopping you from getting the source
and compiling it yourself. Is that
Karsten M. Self scripsit:
It's not clear whether or not condition 1 implies that all
modifications and derived works must be freely distributable,
The MIT and BSD licenses make no such demand. GPL != Open Source.
Anyone could redistribute
the official source (but *not* modified
12 matches
Mail list logo
