Sorry, I've only been following this thread for a bit and this is really not central to the discussion, but a clarification is needed:
APSL Section 2.2(d) applies to any deployment of "Covered Code" (not just Deployed Modifications). The intent is that if you distribute APSL'ed code in only binary form, you need to tell the recipient that the corresponding source for it is available under the APSL and how to get it. I believe it's a fairly common concept that a number of open source licenses have. The actual language reads: "(d) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only, You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License with information on how and where to obtain such Source Code. " - Joyce on 3/14/02 9:38 PM, Bruce Perens at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: David Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> You don't have the APSL quite right. Clause 2.2d only applies to "Your >> Deployed Modifications." >> >> Clause 2.2d merely requires a prominent notice of the license for binary only >> deployments. It can only be triggered by the creation of a derivative work, >> since compilation is considered derivation. > > I prefer this to the proposed GPL change. A whole lot. Is there anything > I should know before I write Eben and Richard to tell them that? > > Thanks > > Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3