On 6/10/10, Shachar Shemesh <shac...@shemesh.biz> wrote: > Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: >> >>> Binary distribution, even of unmodified code, was >>> not allowed. >> > This is not true. DJB did allow distribution of unmodified binaries, so > long as they were compiled with unmodified toolchains.
This is a response to Shimi, not to me. >> That may not fit the "Open Source Definition" then, > Nothing that fits your criteria will. If you are not allowed to > distribute or make changes, then it is not open source. I am not looking for "Open Source". I am looking for a *term* for such a license. In general, we know what "open source" or "free software" means. How do you call what I describe? It is definitely not "open source". > Also, when IBM originally distributed the BIOS's source code, they > allowed anyone who so wished to see the source, but allowed neither > modifications nor distribution. This is from memory only. Correct. I know this well (and lectured on it). Somehow this example slipped my mind. Thanks! Still no term though... Thanks, Shachar, -- Oleg Goldshmidt | p...@goldshmidt.org _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
