This sounds vaguely similar to MPL 2.0. On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:44 AM McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote: > > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On > Behalf Of Russell McOrmond > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 6:40 AM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing > > > > > > > > About your separation of source and binary -- is the idea to not require > "corresponding source" for a distributed binary, and to only have the > copyleft principles apply to the distribution of source code? Sounds > interesting to me if you can get a lawyer on board and figure out a legally > enforceable way to do it. I suspect it won't be trivial. > > > > The separation of source rights from binary rights is a pretty common thing > in the proprietary world. I.e., license to source, but internal only, under > NDA, right to modify but not distribute; license to binary includes right to > distribute, although often with restrictions and/or payment of royalties or > fees. So a decent lawyer, with some software license agreement experience, > would find the exercise perhaps not trivial but not exactly insurmountable. > > > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
