Subject: Re: UnitedLinux and "open source"
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:06:24 -0400 (EDT)

Ned Lilly writes:
 > Does that square with a) the GPL, and/or b) the OSI definition?

Yes and yes.  The GPL requires that you distribute source with
binaries (exception: you can defer this distribution for up to three
years, and wait for it to be requested).  It doesn't say that you have 
to distribute binaries when you distribute the source.

The OSI definition doesn't address trademarks.  Our basic philosophy
is that you MUST be able to get the source and you MUST be able to
make any modifications you want (including creating binaries), and you
MUST be able to give them away.

 > I posed a similar question about restricting the distribution of
 > binaries on this list several months ago, and got an earful.  Am I
 > missing something?

But he's not restricting the *re*-distribution of binaries.  He's
simply restricting the initial distribution of binaries, and requiring 
that you not use the United Linux trademark to describe binaries.

-- 
-russ nelson              http://russnelson.com | 
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |  Plan to be surprised.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |  Surprise can not be planned for.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |  Be open to new light.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3