OSD modification regarding what license can require of

Emiliano emile at iris-advies.nl
Fri Mar 15 09:07:21 UTC 2002

David Johnson wrote:

> > > Clause 2.2d merely requires a prominent notice of the license for binary
> > > only deployments. It can only be triggered by the creation of a
> > > derivative work, since compilation is considered derivation.
> >
> > I prefer this to the proposed GPL change. A whole lot. Is there anything
> > I should know before I write Eben and Richard to tell them that?
> Apropos a recent discussion here, I think it hinges upon whether or not the
> user has the right to create derivative works in private. 17 USC 117 *might*
> suggest that compiling the source code in order to run it on one's own
> computer is the right of the user, and not the author's privilege to restrict.

Where does this leave scripted applications, which don't get compiled?


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

More information about the License-discuss mailing list