The List has returned! [x-adr]

[Scott Smith]

This is the problem I have with it...

<<
3) *Grant of Source Code License.* The term "Source Code" means the 
preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and 
all available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work. 
Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source 
Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that 
Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this 
obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an 
information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and 
convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute 
the Original Work, and by publishing the address of that information 
repository in a notice immediately following the copyright notice that 
applies to the Original Work.
 >>

What if you want to base an application on something licensed with this, 
but don't want to release the source?  YOu can't, from the way I'm 
reading this. With the BSD license you can...

Scott

Frank Wiles wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:40:35 -0500
>Scott Smith <scott at roadtoad.net> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Technically, if you want to get technical, the GPL technically isn't 
>>OPEN source because it restricts the manner in which you can
>>distribute applications based on this license. A technically TRUE
>>*OPEN* source license would be something like the BSD license.
>>    
>>
>
>  By "Open Source" I mean the term as it is used by the Open Source
>  Initiative. See http://www.opensource.org for more information. 
>
>  I wasn't trying to imply completely open like public domain or
>  BSD.  However, software that is in the public domain or BSD
>  licensed doesn't bother me. 
>
> ---------------------------------
>   Frank Wiles <frank at wiles.org>
>   http://frank.wiles.org
> ---------------------------------
>  
>