We are looking for an open source license that...

[Joyce Chow]

On 11/9/02 8:52 PM, Karsten M. Self at kmself at ix.netcom.com wrote:

> on Sat, Nov 09, 2002, Chris F Clark (cfc at world.std.com) wrote:
>> 1) requires users to return to us modifications made to the code for
>>    incoporation into a future version (whether they otherwise
>>    distribute those changes or not).
> 
> Why?  There are those (though by no means all) who argue that this is
> contrary to open source definitions.  Many of those who don't share this
> view _still_ feel that such a requirement is counter to norms within the
> free software community, and tends to greatly _reduce_ third-party
> participation, as they are excessive intrusions of privacy.
> 
> Apple and Sun licenses exist with such clauses, they've been widely and
> strongly criticised.

Hello Karsten:

I'd like to perhaps correct a common (lingering) misperception about the
APSL.   After receiving criticism on the post-back-to-us requirement, Apple
quickly eliminated this requirement way back in APSL version 1.1 (April
1999).  The current version 1.2 -- Section 2.2(c) -- only suggests that you
make your Deployed Modifications available "electronically (e.g. download
from a web site)."

I'm not entirely clear if this was your perception of the APSL, but if so it
was changed back in 1999.  Thanks much.

- Joyce

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