I just want to point out that there is one license already approved which has a "public performance" clause like Bruce gave as an example..
The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-d, which require publication of sources upon "deployment." Can we use this concrete case to clarify the goal of this discussion? So Bruce, (correct me if I am wrong), your goal is OSD changes which better ensure user freedom, but still allow approval of the APSL (and as-yet-unwritten licenses with clauses like you mentioned.) Or is the goal instead to relax the OSD to allow approval of more licenses with clauses like you mentioned? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
