begin Brian Behlendorf quotation:
You have to follow the conditions the GPL sets out in order to
redistribute modified source or binaries. Neither the GPL nor DJB's
conditions listed in his exceptions violate the letter of the OSD.
DJB's might violate the spirit of the OSD, but again,
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
I think this is a flaw in the OSD - what it means is that those authors
who place their software under [a patches-only] license effective make forking
impossible. Why? Because a project aimed at building a derivative work
may not have a shared code tree, making
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
4. The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
modified form only if the license allows the distribution of patch
files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at
build time. The license must
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, John Cowan wrote:
I am not an RCS/CVS expert, but it seems to me that it wouldn't be too
hard to add a mode to download the original source plus forward deltas,
SCCS-style. This mode would meet the restrictions of the license:
the original source is present, and the
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, John Cowan wrote:
So if you devise qmail patches, you can pass them to your friends.
I wasn't contesting that in any way. I was contesting Brian's claim
that passing around patches was not enough in the *spirit* of open
source. I think that patches and binaries are
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
If you can point me at a vibrant open source community laboring under
such conditions, I'll rest my case; however, I just don't see how
it's possible.
Why does it have to be 'vibrant'? All it needs are a few members in
the community.
Given the
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Nope, read more closely at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html:
Exception: You are permitted to distribute a precompiled var-qmail
package if [...list of conditions...]
The OSD doesn't state that there could be no conditions.
That's semantic
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
Nope, read more closely at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html:
Exception: You are permitted to distribute a precompiled var-qmail
package if [...list of conditions...]
The OSD doesn't state
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
DJB allows for binaries of modified source to be created, if they meet a
set of conditions.
Only if they exhibit *exactly* the same behavior as the original.
You can distribute a version localized for another OS or variant,
but you can't distribute a functionally
On Thursday June 07 2001 06:13 pm, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
I submit that checks on power is not the point of open source (or free
software), but rather the freedom from legal culpability in sharing,
and the removal of the most onerous restrictions that prevent forking.
Very well said!
Brian Behlendorf scripsit:
I can modify it to fix a bug which crops up under certain conditions and
causes a core dump, which doesn't change its behavior, it just makes it
more robust. I can then build that, and create a var-qmail package, and
redistribute that, under DJB's terms.
Nope,
On 7 Jun 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Thus, I submit that either qmail's license be approved as an
OSD-conformant license, or OSI consider whether clause #4 needs, er,
clarification. It's hard to argue that neither is the case.
So you are saying that the question here is what
Brian Behlendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7 Jun 2001, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Thus, I submit that either qmail's license be approved as an
OSD-conformant license, or OSI consider whether clause #4 needs, er,
clarification. It's hard to argue that neither is the case.
So you
13 matches
Mail list logo
