OSD #2 (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

Greg London <greglondon at oaktech.com> 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