Re: "Offene Standards": Koalition beharrt auf Umdefinition
"Martin Schröder" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.fitug.debate |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am 23.06.07 schrieb PILCH Hartmut <[email protected]>: > Lizenzbedingungen zu lesen ist nicht einfach, und die Frage ob BSD der > Opensource-Definition entspricht, erfordert mehr als Lesen. > > Wie dem auch sei, unter > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php > > sehe ich, dass die BSD-Lizenz unter die Opensource-Definition fällt. Ach. ----------------- 2. Source Code The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. Rationale: We require access to un-obfuscated source code because you can't evolve programs without modifying them. Since our purpose is to make evolution easy, we require that modification be made easy. ----------------- Das ist _nicht_ BSD-kompatibel, egal was die OSI behauptet. Gruß Martin _______________________________________________ Debate mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fitug.de:8080/mailman/listinfo/debate