GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad)
david at usermode.org
Tue Sep 25 01:42:42 UTC 2001
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
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.
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss