Subject: Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
From: David Johnson <david@usermode.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 09:26:55 -0700

On Tuesday 25 September 2001 02:31 pm, Greg London wrote:

> I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2.
> Since OSD #2 says
> "the program MUST include source code"
> There is nothing in the MIT license to
> guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the
> definition.

Fine. I distribute an MIT licensed proram that includes the source code. I 
have met every requirement of the OSD and can call the program Open Source. 
Then I distribute my next program under the same license, but choose not to 
include the source code or publicize how to obtain it. That specific program 
would not be Open Source.

At times the OSD is placing guidelines upon licenses, and at others upon 
programs. Clause #2 refers to the "program".

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3