Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Karsten M. Self writes: > - Ensure that sources are distributable. Not only distributable, but also available. Sigh. Last time I sat down to rewrite #2, I ended up concluding that we really need to have *two* OSD's: one describing source code, and another describing the distribution of a special type of derived work created through mechanical means from source code which is also not only licensed under an Open Source license, but which is also actually available. Phwew! Started this posting with only three periods left in the type tray, and I managed to complete it using just those three! -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. writes: > It's my understanding that OSI is trying to come up with a plan to review > the OSD. >From my message that you quoted?? No, no plan, but instead more like dreams. Larry has told us more than once that the OSD looks to a lawyer like a computer program written by a lawyer looks to a programmer (no offense intended to those extremely smart people who are proficient at both). While it may work, it doesn't reflect best current practice. But maybe your offer will help turn that dream into a reality? I'm not trying to talk you out of it, but instead to appraise you of the current state. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
It's my understanding that OSI is trying to come up with a plan to review the OSD. I may be presenting a proposal to larry soon to help them in that effort. Even so, I think the lawyers could benefit from the input of the developers. I would not abandon the project. Rod Original Message- >From: "Russell Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: >Bcc: >Subj: Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)) >Type: IPM.Note >Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 12:55 AM > >Karsten M. Self writes: > > Proposed language: > > > > 2. Source Code > > > > The license most provide for 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 or access > > restrictions. The source code so offered must be in the preferred > > form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately > > obfuscated source code does not qualify. Intermediate forms such as > > the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. For > > licenses in which distribution without source is allowed, an OSD > > Qualifying Distribution shall be defined as an offering of the > > software, under qualifying license terms, with source or an offer of > > source as described in this paragraph. > >Good. Close. Better than my previous attempt. What do you think >of this: > >2. Source Code > >The license applies to source code. A compiled executable is >considered a derived work. Such an executable is only open source >if its source code is also open source. When a compiled >executable 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 or access restrictions. The source >code so offered must be in the preferred form in which a >programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated >source code does not qualify. Intermediate forms such as the >output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. > >Of course, a big problem with the OSD is that it talks about legal >requirements, and yet was not touched by a lawyer before being cast >into stone. Any kind of extensive rewrite probably ought to be done >by people with actual experience with the law, as opposed to >dilettantes like you and I. > >-- >-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com >Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act >521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: >Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html >-- >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Karsten M. Self writes: > Proposed language: > > 2. Source Code > > The license most provide for 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 or access > restrictions. The source code so offered must be in the preferred > form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately > obfuscated source code does not qualify. Intermediate forms such as > the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. For > licenses in which distribution without source is allowed, an OSD > Qualifying Distribution shall be defined as an offering of the > software, under qualifying license terms, with source or an offer of > source as described in this paragraph. Good. Close. Better than my previous attempt. What do you think of this: 2. Source Code The license applies to source code. A compiled executable is considered a derived work. Such an executable is only open source if its source code is also open source. When a compiled executable 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 or access restrictions. The source code so offered must be in the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code does not qualify. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. Of course, a big problem with the OSD is that it talks about legal requirements, and yet was not touched by a lawyer before being cast into stone. Any kind of extensive rewrite probably ought to be done by people with actual experience with the law, as opposed to dilettantes like you and I. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
Some have said that the MIT/BSD licenses do not REQUIRE access to the source code, and where the licenses PERMIT access to the source code, code forking is permitted for redistributions of modified works. I think this is correct although the "list of conditions" clauses in the license are so ambiguous that they have a recursive quality. In my opinion, the MIT/BSD licenses are uncomplicated, but not well-drafted. BSD: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission" Rod Dixon "Life...work which you despise, which bores you, and which the world does not need - this life is hell." W.E.B. DuBois in 1958 > > Greg London wrote: > > >>In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly > >>*can* charge Alice a million > >>bucks for the source, but the license would > >>still be an Open Source license. > > > > It seems to me that the MIT does not meet > > item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes > > above and beyond #2 requirements. But the > > MIT license seems to fall short. > > > Let's not lose track of what we are talking about. The OSD requires (by > #2) that the publisher of an Open Source work provide access to the > source code, and that (by #3) it be possible for anyone to freely make > derivative works. > > There is *no* requirement that derivative works are themselves > necessarily Open Source. Under the GPL, they are; under MIT/BSD, they > are not; under LGPL, it depends on the character of the derivative > work; under MPL, it depends on how the changes were made. > -- > Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com > during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Rick Moen writes: > The existence of a set of guidelines fortunately doesn't bar the Board > -- or the rest of us -- from applying common sense. E.g., "Sorry, but > software without source code cannot be open source." Yup. -- -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war. For my take, see: Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | http://quaker.org/crime.html -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
On Tuesday 25 September 2001 02:31 pm, Greg London wrote: > I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. > Since OSD #2 says > "the program MUST include source code" > There is nothing in the MIT license to > guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the > definition. Fine. I distribute an MIT licensed proram that includes the source code. I have met every requirement of the OSD and can call the program Open Source. Then I distribute my next program under the same license, but choose not to include the source code or publicize how to obtain it. That specific program would not be Open Source. At times the OSD is placing guidelines upon licenses, and at others upon programs. Clause #2 refers to the "program". -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
begin Matthew C. Weigel quotation: > I also think that the OSD contributes to this misunderstanding - I > think the wording of the introduction should be rewritten to not > suggest the distribution terms have to meet the OSD, but the > distribution terms or the distribution itself. Actually, I think it's just a case of some computer geeks amusing themselves be pretending that the OSD is supposed to be a standalone expert system for auto-issuing licence certifications -- while knowing full well that it's actually a set of guidelines for what the Board will or won't likely certify based upon the licence's substance. The existence of a set of guidelines fortunately doesn't bar the Board -- or the rest of us -- from applying common sense. E.g., "Sorry, but software without source code cannot be open source." -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Greg London wrote: > is it possible to take GPL'ed code, > modify it, relicense it under > a proprietary license, and distribute > it only in binary form? > > my understanding is it is not possible. > but MIT'ed code would allow this. Irrelevant. Is it possible to take APSL'ed code, modify it, and not provide Apple with information on your changes? My understanding is it is not possible. But MIT'ed code would allow this. > The 'bar' to meet GPL is pretty high. > The bar to satisfy the MIT license is on the ground. > The OSD is somewhere in between. No. First, understand that the OSI certifies *software*, in part because of the license under which it is distributed, and in part based upon what is distributed. So, as Bruce indicated, if software is made available under the BSD license and includes source code, it is OSI approved. If not, then not. OSD #2 applies to the software, and not the license. > one can argue about RMS's definition > of free software, but his implementation > (the GPL license) set the bar a LOT > higher than MIT. So? > One could also argue that RMS's definition > is moot to OSI, since OSI has it's own > definition to follow. No, even working from the FSF definition, the BSD/MIT license is free. > > and to change the OSD to exclude them > > would be a travesty. > > travesty smavesty. > I'm not saying exclude GPL. Never did. Please read what he wrote - excluding the BSD or MIT licenses would be a travesty. > I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. That's correct. Because, strictly speaking, #2 applies to software, and not licenses. A license may preemptively *require* #2 to be met, but it need not - so long as it is met. > Since OSD #2 says > "the program MUST include source code" > There is nothing in the MIT license to > guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the > definition. Go back to the part you had so much difficulty with before - the OSI approves software, based in part upon software licenses. It certifies licenses as being compatible with the OSD. > And OSD#2 requires this, because it uses > the word "MUST". I didn't put it there, > OSI did. So, were you to distribute a derivative of a BSD kernel in binary form without source, you would not be distributing free software (unless you let people know where they could get the source). > It isn't about it being a "travesty". > It's about whether or not OSI followed > its own definition. No, it's a question of reading comprehension. The OSD does not require "the license must guarantee access in source code form," "the license must provide a public location from which to download the source," etc. It says the software must either include source, or have a well-publicized location from which to get source. Now, if you wanted the source to the FreeBSD kernel, included in binary form on your installation floppy... you know where to get it- www.freebsd.org. > If OSI certification gives absolutely > no guarantees about code licensed with > an OSI approved license, then OSI is > moot. Disregarding my own opinions on this, your analysis and the logic that leads to your conclusion are founded upon a misunderstanding. I also think that the OSD contributes to this misunderstanding - I think the wording of the introduction should be rewritten to not suggest the distribution terms have to meet the OSD, but the distribution terms or the distribution itself. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
begin Greg London quotation: > I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. Since OSD #2 says > "the program MUST include source code" There is nothing in the MIT > license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition. Ahem. Nostalgic for freshman philosophy? It would be physically possible to issue a binary without source and claim it to be under the MIT licence, but nobody would be particularly impressed, let alone call that open source. I should point out that the OSD is not intended to be an AI routine, just a set of guidelines that can be understood by reasonable people. In practice, the Board is there, in part, to say "Very creative, and certainly a nice try, but of course the answer is no." -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Bruce Perens wrote: > Both the MIT license and Public Domain > fit under both the > OSD and RMS's definition of Free Software, is it possible to take GPL'ed code, modify it, relicense it under a proprietary license, and distribute it only in binary form? my understanding is it is not possible. but MIT'ed code would allow this. The 'bar' to meet GPL is pretty high. The bar to satisfy the MIT license is on the ground. The OSD is somewhere in between. one can argue about RMS's definition of free software, but his implementation (the GPL license) set the bar a LOT higher than MIT. One could also argue that RMS's definition is moot to OSI, since OSI has it's own definition to follow. > and to change the OSD to exclude them > would be a travesty. travesty smavesty. I'm not saying exclude GPL. Never did. I said GPL exceeds the minimum requirements given by the OSD. I have no qualms with GPL being OSI approved. You're not talking to that which I am saying. I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. Since OSD #2 says "the program MUST include source code" There is nothing in the MIT license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition. And OSD#2 requires this, because it uses the word "MUST". I didn't put it there, OSI did. Therefore OSI should not have approved the MIT license, since MIT does not satisfy this requirement. OSI put the bar at a certain height, and the MIT license limbo'ed right under it. It isn't about it being a "travesty". It's about whether or not OSI followed its own definition. If OSI certification gives absolutely no guarantees about code licensed with an OSI approved license, then OSI is moot. IMHO IANAL TINLA YRMV Greg YRMV=> Your Results May Vary -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Greg London <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in part) > It seems to me that the MIT does not meet > item #2 of the OSD, then. An Open Source license is _not_ required to prohibit someone from making a version of the software that is closed source. And since someone can do that without changing the license, simply by refusing to distribute source, we needed to talk about more than just the license. The MIT license very definitely allows source code to be passed on, and if a version of a MIT-licensed program includes source code, it is an Open Source program. In general, people who don't distribute the source change the license to "All Rights Reserved", but they don't have to. So, it's pretty clear that there can be MIT-licensed programs that are not Open Source. Thus, we really do need to make a distinction between the _license_ and the _product_. > In my reading (and yours too), it is possible to > distribute software under an OSI certified license, > and fail to meet OSD #2. That is correct. Having source code is a required condition, over and above the license language, for a program to be Open Source. > That seems like a problem which should be discussed somewhere. Not really. The license is OSI-certified. The fact that available source code does not exist means the program is not Open Source, despite the fact that the license which has been applied to it is OSI-certified. This is also the case for Public Domain software, for which we clearly _can_not_ change the license, because there is no license. Both the MIT license and Public Domain fit under both the OSD and RMS's definition of Free Software, and to change the OSD to exclude them would be a travesty. > What should be done about it? Explain this issue in the OSD commentary. > Is the OSI going to certifying distribution mechanisms > as well as licenses? (Unlikely) I don't think it's necessary over and above the current simple statement that there must be source. It's pretty clear that if the program doesn't include Source, it's not Open. > It hardly seems likely that the BSD and MIT, (et al) > licenses which don't guarantee downstream source are > going to be decertified. Remember that the definition was written to fit the licenses, not the other way around. We had the BSD, GPL, Artistic and Public Domain, and we were sure they were Free Software. Then we needed to set down what Free Software was so that we could figure out what other licenses were suitable for inclusion in Debian. > Does OSD #2 need to be reworked? I don't think so. > I hope that Bruce can comment on this point. Be careful what you wish for :-) Actually, even the GPL does not prohibit a particular form of proprietary work. If you _never_distribute_ your GPL derivative, it can be proprietary. Thanks Bruce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
Greg London <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in part) > > It seems to me that the MIT does not meet > item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes > above and beyond #2 requirements. But the > MIT license seems to fall short. > > OSD #2 seems to be setting a clear minimum > requirement that source code must be included > with any distribution, or be made publicly > available. OSD #2 is an oddball clause to be sure. All the other clauses describe "The license", and #2 starts "The program..." (#7 starts differently too, but it describes the license as well.) This point has been touched before on this list, but I recall it was a secondary discussion. At the time no one proposed any changes in the wording of the requirements. In my reading (and yours too), it is possible to distribute software under an OSI certified license, and fail to meet OSD #2. That seems like a problem which should be discussed somewhere. What should be done about it? Is the OSI going to certifying distribution mechanisms as well as licenses? (Unlikely) It hardly seems likely that the BSD and MIT, (et al) licenses which don't guarantee downstream source are going to be decertified. Does OSD #2 need to be reworked? I hope that Bruce can comment on this point. -- Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
Greg London wrote: >>In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly >>*can* charge Alice a million >>bucks for the source, but the license would >>still be an Open Source license. > > It seems to me that the MIT does not meet > item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes > above and beyond #2 requirements. But the > MIT license seems to fall short. Let's not lose track of what we are talking about. The OSD requires (by #2) that the publisher of an Open Source work provide access to the source code, and that (by #3) it be possible for anyone to freely make derivative works. There is *no* requirement that derivative works are themselves necessarily Open Source. Under the GPL, they are; under MIT/BSD, they are not; under LGPL, it depends on the character of the derivative work; under MPL, it depends on how the changes were made. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
begin Greg London quotation: > It seems to me that the MIT does not meet > item #2 of the OSD, then. You're confusing source code of the original work with source code of derivative works. Under MIT / BSD / similar, you're not guaranteed access to the latter. I suppose it would be physically possible to release binary-only software and claim it to be under the MIT licence, but that would be pretty pointless. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
David Johnson wrote: > > On Monday 24 September 2001 11:08 am, Greg London wrote: > You err slightly in (B). It does not mean that > the source code must be made equally available > to those without the binary. you missed my following paragraph that said (paraphrasing) :(B) somewhat implies public distribution :but it is possible to distribute a binary :and give a well publicized URL that requires :a password to get the source. > > One thing Bob can't do, according to OSD, > > is fix a bug in Alice's code, send her a binary > > that works, and taunt her, saying "I'll send > > you the source for a million bucks." > > Once Bob sends Alice a binary, he must make > > the source available to her. > In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly > *can* charge Alice a million > bucks for the source, but the license would > still be an Open Source license. It seems to me that the MIT does not meet item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes above and beyond #2 requirements. But the MIT license seems to fall short. OSD #2 seems to be setting a clear minimum requirement that source code must be included with any distribution, or be made publicly available. looking at the MIT license, it seems to simply waive all rights and throw in a No Warranty clause. IANAL TINLA GREG -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
On Monday 24 September 2001 11:08 am, Greg London wrote: > OR (B) > you distribute a binary in one kit. > and you make the source code freely available. > (preferably downloading for free on the net) > > those are the only two options of the OSD. You err slightly in (B). The OSD says that there must be a well publicized means of obtaining the source code. In my interpretation, "publicized means" can refer to an FTP or website, or a README file, or the standard documentation, or any other means that notifies a potentially anonymous holder of a binary as to how to obtain the source code. It does not mean that the source code must be made equally available to those without the binary. > One thing Bob can't do, according to OSD, > is fix a bug in Alice's code, send her a binary > that works, and taunt her, saying "I'll send > you the source for a million bucks." > Once Bob sends Alice a binary, he must make > the source available to her. The OSD applies to licenses and software. It does not apply to you, me or the guy behind the tree. In the case of Nefarious Bob, the OSD is completely silent. It doesn't care what Bob does. That's not its job. That the job of the license. In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly *can* charge Alice a million bucks for the source, but the license would still be an Open Source license. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
Rick Moen wrote: > I'm sure views will differ as to whether compelling > disclosure of private work _should_ be seen as in > the intended spirit of the OSD. such disclosure should be viewed in the same light as license that forces all modifications be sent to the original author. in short, dimly viewed upon. The Bazaar-Nazi's on the list may have something else to say about it though... I.M.H.O. I.A.N.A.L. M.O.U.S.E. Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
begin Greg London quotation: > The difference is APSL does not give you the option > of limiting source code to people to whom you give > your distributions. OSD allows source code to be > contained within a "circle of friends". That is exactly it. Thank you for clarifying the matter. I was very likely too brain-fried by fatigue to express it clearly, but in any event you've laid out the distinction well. Of course, I'm sure views will differ as to whether compelling disclosure of private work _should_ be seen as in the intended spirit of the OSD. As Russ quite rightly pointed out, such conditions are fully compatible with its existing wording. -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
>Whether or not you think Apple's behavior >is legitimate, do you now agree that there >is a real behavioral difference between the >GPL and the APSL on this score? civil action is not the differntiating factor. Apple's behaviour is no different than if it were GPL, and John failed to produce source code at John's request. FSF would pursue him similarly. The OSD requires the source to be given to *at a minimum* anyone who recieves a distribution. which means universal distribution is not required. APSL requires that regardless of distribution, you must publicly distribute your code. The difference is APSL does not give you the option of limiting source code to people to whom you give your distributions. OSD allows source code to be contained within a "circle of friends". IANAL Greg London -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
% OSD 2: % The program must include source code, ... % % When some [program] is not distributed with % source code, there must be a well-publicized % means of obtaining the source code % % preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. so, according to OSD, you have two options EITHER (A) you distribute source and binary in one kit. OR (B) you distribute a binary in one kit. and you make the source code freely available. (preferably downloading for free on the net) those are the only two options of the OSD. (B) somewhat implies public distribution by mentioning "internet" and "well-publicized". but it is possible to distribute a binary and give a URL that requires a password for those you allow to download the source code. and such a way could be "well-publicized" even though the password is not public. Option (A) does not, in any way, require publicity. Alice could download some software off teh net. Alice could modify it and send the Binary and Source to Bob. Bob and Alice could be employees of Charlie who owns a Corporation. Charlie has Alice adn Bob sign a NDA, saying they will not distribute any of their software outside the company. As long as all distributions within said company include source code from employee to employee, the source does not have to be made public. And satisfies the Open Source Definition. One thing Bob can't do, according to OSD, is fix a bug in Alice's code, send her a binary that works, and taunt her, saying "I'll send you the source for a million bucks." Once Bob sends Alice a binary, he must make the source available to her. I don't have a problem with this. And I think allowing this makes corporations warmer to using Open Source within their company. The OSD does not require that all modifications be sent to the author. Nor should it require all modifications be public. The APSL raises the bar. It takes the OSD and makes it even "more open". Which is fine by me. See my allegory sequel to the cathedral and the bazaar. Some dealers at the bazaar want square tables and some want round tables. IANAL Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
Rob Myers wrote: > I agree, but I believe that this is a general problem with the *idea* of > Open Source rather than Apple's implementation of it. I don't think so, no, not at all. Consider these scenarios: Scenario A: 1. John grabs GNU Hello from a handy GNU mirror site. 2. John fixes the bug of long standing [ask me for details] that makes the -m option unusable. 3. John compiles hello and sends the binary to Rob, saying "Try this excellent Hello World program! Like all truly useful programs, it includes a mail reader. If you want the source code patch, ask me for it any time these next 3 years." 4. The FSF is satisfied. *If* Rob wants to forward the binary to his friend Bill, Rob has to ask John for the patch so that Rob can give it to Bill on request. John cannot, of course, withhold the patch from Rob. Scenario B: 1. John grabs the program Hallo Weldt [sic], a functionally similar program licensed under the APSL, from an Apple site. 2. John corrects the spelling of "Welt". 3. John compiles hallo and sends the binary to Rob, saying etc. etc. 4. Ratfink Rob reports this to Apple. 5. The Apple lawyers now get after John, for he has distributed a modified version of Hallo Weldt [sic] without publishing his patch to the whole world. Whether or not you think Apple's behavior is legitimate, do you now agree that there is a real behavioral difference between the GPL and the APSL on this score? -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
