FS/OSS license: not quite enough of a requirement

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 19:57 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 21:05 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On May 10, 2007, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> And today I realized that's not quite enough to ensure that the *user*
> > >> receives the source code from us.  All that states is that *we* get
> > >> the source code.
> > >> 
> > >> So we could in theory accept Free Software, including source code,
> > >> under a liberal license, build it AFAICT in perfect accordance with
> > >> our guidelines, and distribute only its binaries to our users.
> > 
> > > huh? , it's right in the *definition* of opensource (see item 2):
> > > http://opensource.org/docs/osd
> > 
> > Yeah, and it's in the definition of Free Software.  And if *we* can
> > enjoy the freedoms, it's Free Software for us.  And if software
> > complies with all the criteria set forth in the OSD, then it's OSS for
> > us.
> > 
> > But where do we state that it's going to remain so for our users?
> 
> _Fedora_ doesn't have to.  _Fedora_ cannot change the licenses of the
> packages we ship.  Those licenses dictate that we cannot remove the
> freedoms granted to the users.  Add to that the fact that we don't not
                                                        do not ^^^^^^^^^

/me is so tired.

josh