OSD modification regarding what license can require of

Forrest J. Cavalier III mibsoft at mibsoftware.com
Thu Mar 14 06:40:08 UTC 2002

I just want to point out that there is one license
already approved which has a "public performance"
clause like Bruce gave as an example..

The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-d, which require
publication of sources upon "deployment."

Can we use this concrete case to clarify the goal of
this discussion?

So Bruce, (correct me if I am wrong), your goal is OSD changes
which better ensure user freedom, but still allow approval
of the APSL (and as-yet-unwritten licenses with clauses like
you mentioned.)  

Or is the goal instead to relax the OSD to allow approval of more
licenses with clauses like you mentioned?

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list