On 4/14/06, Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > listen to yourself, your speaking as though software should be distributed > > and sold exactly like Windows server products are: aimed at the > > administrators who are just pretending to be adminstrators, and who are > > not real professionals. > > > Thank goodness that FreeBSD has the ports collection, this kind of > > attitude of everything binary only is sickening. > > I'm not saying binary only, I'm saying binary too!!!
All the GPL requires is that binary distributions of a GPL'd software must include the source, or include a written offer to make the source available for a nominal copying charge; it also requires that the license be included so that the person licensing the program knows that they have that right, granted by the copyright holder of the program. It doesn't have any "obnoxious advertising clauses" if the source is included, and the file LICENSE is merely placed in the program's directory and doesn't have to be shown during installation. (However, most GPL'd software distributed in binary form, at least on Windows, does show it as part of InstallShield's "License" screen.) > > > I can hardly tell if I'm on an open source mailing list or a Microsoft > > product mailing list. One of the main strengths of using open source is > > that since it's open you can modify it and fix bugs - even the FSF and I > > agree on this - and you want to turn back the clock and have everyone > > dependent on binaries some CDrom distributor created? > > I'm not saying dependant, I'm saying available!!! As it stands, someone could -- AND HAS, historically -- take any version of any BSD-licensed software and make a binary-only distribution out of it, and refuse to make the source (and the changes that they've made) available. The purpose of the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause" was to ensure that the origin of the software was not ignored or denied. However, with open-source projects that are typically compiled and used by systems administrators and supported by support companies, the source for the library is as easy to include as the source for the program that uses the library. So... Why not an advertising clause exemption for non-binary (i.e., source) distributions, and binaries that accompany such source distributions? That would make the license GPL-friendly (thus increasing the ability for organizations to adopt open-source software without their lawyers getting anxious -- let's face it, free software, such as gcc, is a very significant subset of what open-source software has to offer) while at the same time allowing for the current system of proprietary binaries built from BSD+advert software to still maintain representation of the origin of the software. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
