Re: Source only opensource licence.

2003-12-07 Thread Santiago Vila
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 > > everyo

Re: Source only opensource licence.

2003-12-07 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
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 ru

Re: Source only opensource licence.

2003-12-05 Thread Brian T. Sniffen
"Franck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Hi, > >We are currently working on a web-developpement tool for a private > company. > >The people who fund the project are okay to give opensource a try, but > they insist on some restrictions. (for the business model to be > sucessful). > >Th

Re: Source only opensource licence.

2003-12-03 Thread Anthony DeRobertis
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 18:18, Franck wrote: >The licence would not be so bad. The only restriction is about the > redistribution of binaries wich would be restricted. Windows binaries > distribution would be forbidden, but GNU/Linux (as well as GNU Hurd and > BSDs) binary distribution would be

Re: Source only opensource licence.

2003-12-02 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003, Franck wrote: > The licence would not be so bad. The only restriction is about the > redistribution of binaries wich would be restricted. Windows binaries > distribution would be forbidden, but GNU/Linux (as well as GNU Hurd > and BSDs) binary distribution would be okay without

Re: Source only opensource licence.

2003-12-02 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit "Franck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >The licence would not be so bad. The only restriction is about the > redistribution of binaries wich would be restricted. Windows binaries > distribution would be forbidden, I think such a restriction is inherently incompatible with DFSG-freedom. > >Fr

Re: Source only opensource licence.

2003-12-02 Thread Måns Rullgård
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>The licence would not be so bad. The only restriction is about the >> redistribution of binaries wich would be restricted. Windows binaries >> distribution would be forbidden, but GNU/Linux (as well as GNU Hurd and >> BSDs) binary distribution wo

Re: Source only opensource licence.

2003-12-02 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mar 02/12/2003 à 00:18, Franck a écrit : >The licence would not be so bad. The only restriction is about the > redistribution of binaries wich would be restricted. Windows binaries > distribution would be forbidden, but GNU/Linux (as well as GNU Hurd and > BSDs) binary distribution would be