Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

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" <nelson at crynwr.com>
   >To:         	"license-discuss at opensource.org"
<license-discuss at opensource.org>
   >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 <sig at russnelson.com>  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