Subject: Re: Must publish vs. must supply
From: "Abe Kornelis" <abe@bixoft.nl>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:34:19 +0100

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chris F Clark <cfc@world.std.com>

> My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the
> license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal
> precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors.
> Restricting the rights of others to make secret (and perhaps even
> private) derived works is a right that copyright law has established
> is within the authors domain.
--> Speaking strictly for myself: secret derivatives of my software
      are ok with me - it's only when distribution comes to play a role
      that I would demand that distribution may be done to a selct group
      but never without publishing to the public.

>  Unless one can find specific reason why
> it violates the open source (or free software) definition, I think
> such a license should be considered open source (and/or free
> software).  Now, perhaps the privacy concern is sufficient to make the
> license not free software.  However, I don't think it violates the
> open source definition--just my opinion again.
--> What I currently have was taken from various licenses that
       already have been approved by the OSI board. If such clauses
       are deemed to violate the OSD, then it must be a matter of
       wording, not of principles.

> -Chris Clark
> 
> Again, a personal request: Please do not send me personal copies
--> Check

Kind regards, Abe Kornelis




--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3