License for JavaScript applications

[mitchell baker]

Also,  the MPL define the source version as the "preferred form for making
modifications".  We used this definition precisely to pick up setting like you
describe.  So the MPL would work fine if you like the license.

When we wrote the MPL, we adopted this idea (of source as the preferred form for
making modifications) from  GPL practices.  So I assume the GPL works the same
way.  But I don't claim to have particular knowledge for the GPL, others are far
more knowledgable than I about the GPL.

Mitchell Baker

John Cowan wrote:

> ipeters at europe.mitem.com wrote:
>
> > However, every license I have looked at so far makes the assumption that
> > the application has "binary" and "source" versions.
>
> I think that there is no problem under any open-source license, since
> in no case is binary distribution compelled; it is simply allowed provided
> source is distributed also.  So there is no problem with saying that in your
> case the binary and the source are the same thing.
>
> --
>
> Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
> Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)