Subject: Re: compatibility and the OSD
From: Ernest Prabhakar <>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:57:41 -0700

 Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:57:41 -0700
Perhaps more importantly, I believe the OSD is intended to reflect the 
"general understanding" of the open source community.  I  think that 
any license that prevents the distribution of modified binaries (even 
conditionally) would be considered not merely obnoxious, but entirely 
contrary to the spirit of open source.

It might be "shared source" or something like that, but not what I at 
least would consider Open Source.   If I as a recipient can never 
repurpose the software for my ends, then to me its no different than a 
commercial source license.

-- Ernie P.
IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc.

On Sep 22, 2004, at 12:28 PM, Rick Moen wrote:

> Quoting Russell Nelson (
>> OSD#3 says "The license must allow modifications and derived works."
>> It doesn't say "The license must allow some modifications and derived
>> works." Neither does it say "The license must allow all modifications
>> and derived works." We, however, behave as if it says the latter, not
>> the former. Any reason why we shouldn't?
> The latter is obviously the intent, in my view.