Subject: Re: compatibility and the OSD
From: Bob Scheifler <Bob.Scheifler@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:38:07 -0400

>  > > OSD #2 says that redistribution of compiled binaries must be permitted; 
>  > 
>  > Perhaps I am horribly confused but it seems to me that OSD#2 says
> 
> Typo, sorry, that's OSD #3.  A compiled binary is a derived work.

But what term in the OSD requires unrestricted distribution of all
derivative works in binary form? OSD#3 only requires distribution
"under the same terms as the license of the original software",
which does not seem to prohibit terms that carry restrictions.
Indeed, OSD#2 is in effect a restriction on the form of a derivative
work (when distributed under the same license), and OSD#4 permits
restrictions. MPL 1.1, for example, imposes restrictions on distribution
of executables:
       You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the
       requirements of Section 3.1-3.5 have been met for that Covered
       Code
Why are MPL's restrictions acceptable, but mine are not?

- Bob