Copy-Back License draft for discussion

Chris Zumbrunn chris at
Mon Apr 25 13:16:31 UTC 2005

On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:50 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:

> --On 24 April 2005 21:24 +0200 Chris Zumbrunn <chris at> wrote:
>> Developers that make modifications on the other hand are burdened with
>> keeping track of changes and feeding them back to the licensor,
> That's exactly why we did *not* do that in the OVPL.

You said elsewhere that under the OVPL the requirement to make source 
code available is triggered by use of an executable as an ASP service, 
correct? How/where do you ensure that the source will be made available 
in that situation?

So far, the only relevant section in the CDDL/OVPL I found is:

"You must inform recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable 
form as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source Code 
form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for 
software exchange."

Is a user of an ASP service a "recipient of Covered Software in 
Executable form"?

Does the OVPL carefully avoid a "copyback" formulation by expanding the 
requirement to release source code beyond the distribution of binaries?

Or did I misunderstand the CDDL/OVPL's intention in regards to ASP 


More information about the License-discuss mailing list