Re: [Debate] "Offene Standards": Koalition beharrt auf Umdefinition

["Martin Schröder" <martin@oneiros.de>]

Am 23.06.07 schrieb PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>:
> 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
Debate@lists.fitug.de
http://lists.fitug.de:8080/mailman/listinfo/debate