On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 20:39, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > > "Franck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think the best choice from a Free Software point of view would be > > two licenses: one that offers the no-binary-distribution license to > > everyone, and a separate license to distribute binaries which run only > > on GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurt, NetBSD, OpenBSD, or FreeBSD systems. > > I think we can agree that "you may only distribute binaries for Linux" > would not be free. So that part of the dual-license is non-free > > Source-only violates DFSG 2, "...as well as compiled form." and DFSG 4, > "...must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified > source code." > > I don't believe what you've proposed is free, at least under the DFSG.
Indeed. A license "for GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd, NetBSD, OpenBSD, or FreeBSD systems" would exclude GNU/KFreeBSD and GNU/KNetBSD, for example :-)
