OSD modification regarding what license can require of

[Joyce Chow]

Sorry, I've only been following this thread for a bit and this is really not
central to the discussion, but a clarification is needed:

APSL Section 2.2(d) applies to any deployment of "Covered Code" (not just
Deployed Modifications).  The intent is that if you distribute APSL'ed code
in only binary form, you need to tell the recipient that the corresponding
source for it is available under the APSL and how to get it.  I believe it's
a fairly common concept that a number of open source licenses have.  The
actual language reads:

"(d)     if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only,
You must include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in
related documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is
available under the terms of this License with information on how and where
to obtain such Source Code. "

- Joyce

on 3/14/02 9:38 PM, Bruce Perens at bruce at perens.com wrote:

> From: David Johnson <david at usermode.org>
>> You don't have the APSL quite right. Clause 2.2d only applies to "Your
>> Deployed Modifications."
>> 
>> 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?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bruce

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