From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 25 09:21:33 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCFB16A4CE for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:21:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from out011.verizon.net (out011pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.135]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A4F43D2F for ; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:21:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com ([68.161.129.47]) by out011.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040125172130.NMKA17235.out011.verizon.net@mac.com>; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:21:30 -0600 Message-ID: <4013FB11.4040100@mac.com> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:21:21 -0500 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Schilling References: <20040124214735.GE548@foghorn.rsmba.biz> <40131AEA.2000804@mac.com> <20040125130942.GG309@foghorn.rsmba.biz> In-Reply-To: <20040125130942.GG309@foghorn.rsmba.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out011.verizon.net from [68.161.129.47] at Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:21:30 -0600 cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License [rschi@rsmba.biz] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:21:33 -0000 Richard Schilling wrote: [ ... ] Richard, the best place for you to discuss your license and have it reviewed for compliance with the OSI Open Source(tm) definition is . If you submit your license following the procedure as documented on www.opensource.org, the OSI board of directors will review and respond appropriately. It's off-topic here. > Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a > proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the > deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product. If the derivative work has such a restriction, the derivative is not under an Open Source software license. If the original work has restrictions which prevent the software from being "freely" redistributed, or which restrict commercial (re)use, the original license would not be Open Source, either. [ ... ] > If a developer chooses to not release their code, that's up to them, in > which case I would not call the _software_ an Open Source product. However, > the license is Open Source because it does not prevent the distribution of > code - it simply requires the end user to get the code from the source that > the developer approves of. If a developer says the product can be distributed > through Sourceforge, then it can. Good example! If you submit a project under your SSOSL, you will presumably discover that SourceForge won't host the project after they review the license. (Seriously.) They'll even tell you why. -- -Chuck