Subject: Re: OpenLDAP license
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:53:44 -0400 (EDT)

Frank Hecker writes:
 > I spoiled my example. I meant to add that the terms for the source code
 > would be proprietary. Thus in my hypothetical example the source code
 > distribution would not be "OSI Certified Open Source Software" but the
 > binary distribution would be.

I agree that this is not clear as it should be.  Arguably it should be 
addressed by having two sets of requirements: one for source code, and 
another for binaries.  One of the requirements on the latter is that
the source code must be OSI Certified Open Source, and it must
actually be available.

-- 
-russ nelson will be speaking at http://www.osdn.com/conferences/brie/
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | T-568-B rules!
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | T-568-A drools!
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | Go T-568-B !