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
