Hello Jonathan,
in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] was written:
JA> They may be able to release binary versions under maybe the GPL license
JA> for example at which point I don't think source code needs to be
JA> distributed.
No. GPL states that source code has to be available, at least 'on request'.
So no 'GPL' without sources.
I don't know if LGPL ('lesser GPL') allows distribution of 'only binaries',
but that doesn't matter:
1.) There're still several BSD-styled licences that allow distribution of
binary only
2.) One don't even need to adapt one of the common licence models.
RIT can distribute their software under whatever licence they want to,
even their own. No need to change the existing licence to something
else, there's no prohibition for distributing software with a
proprietary licence.
I really do wonder why everybody thinks software written for Linux _has_ to
be GPLed or similar .... :-)
--
Regards
Peter Palmreuther
(The Bat! v1.62/Beta1 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2)
Cold pizza: the generic breakfast
________________________________________________________
Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
