OSD #6 (fields of endeavor) and research vs commercial rights

[Bob Scheifler]

Thanks for the response.

> Just in case this helps clarify things in terms of the APSL (can't speak 
> for the Reciprocal Public License, sorry)...

(My intent was not to knock specific licenses, but to give some
possible examples to help set context.)

> The APSL 1.2 (currently now the APSL 2.0, which has no distinction 
> between commercial use or research) does *not* grant different rights 
> depending on whether you use it for commercial or research only.

Understood (both to the assertion and the age of 1.2).

> The distinction only comes into play 
> in terms of when a user's obligations to post source of modifications 
> kick in (when "Deployment" is triggered).

In APSL 1.2, as I read it, Deploy is specific to commercial use only.
I take this abstractly as imposing more obligations on commercial use
than on research use. To me, imposing different obligations on
commercial vs research is still a form of discrimination.

> This is similar to other OSI 
> licenses, such as the Mozilla Public License -- the trigger point there 
> is "Commercial Use", i.e., distribution to a third party; GPL/LGPL - 
> same thing, it kicks in upon distribution to a third party.

It does not seem equivalent to me. The MPL treats all distribution to
third parties uniformly, regardless of whether that distribution was
for research or commercial purpose; there's no discrimination.
APSL 1.2 seems to discriminate between distribution for research use
and distribution for commercial use (by imposing different obligations).

- Bob

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