Re: WineX and the AFPL

On Thu, 30 May 2002 03:55, [email protected] wrote:

> And also, consider that if they are even remotely considering inserting
> other 'requirements', like the "no-binaries" restriction, I doubt it would
> meet even SourceForges criteria :p

Since the GPL requires source to be distributed with the binary, why
cannot other licenses require that no binaries be distributed?

> On Thu, 30 May 2002, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:33:07 +0200
> > From: Lionel Elie Mamane <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: Alexandre Julliard <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: WineX and the AFPL
> >
> > On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 12:38:32AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > But, there are other projects out there are under the aladdin free
> > > public license, and they are certainly still considered open source
> > > projects, for example Ghostscript...
> >
> > The only reason Ghostscript is considered Open Source (and free
> > software) is that versions that are not the most current one are
> > released under the GPL, and will continue to be.
> >
> > So, GNU Ghostscript is Open Source and Free Software. AFPL Ghostscript
> > is _not_.
> >
> > --
> > Lionel
> >
>
>


--------------
[email protected]