OSD modification regarding what license can require of

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Tue Mar 19 20:13:24 UTC 2002

Thanks, Joyce. What I have suggested to FSF is that the definition of
"deploy", for their use, must be tightened up to only apply to the
situations in which one would otherwise be pushing that "source code"
button, and only for derived works.



From: Joyce Chow <jchow at apple.com>
> 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
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list