OVPL & "Otherwise Make Available" (was RE: Change ot topic, back to OVPL)

[Alex Bligh]

In the OVPL, we use the term "otherwise make available" in various places.
We have duplicated the use in the CDDL here, though the term is not
specifically defined.

Various people have suggested we define it. Others have suggested we
minimize the changes between the CDDL and the OVPL. I have been sent
mail off-list suggesting that whilst the absence of a definition may be
OK in the CDDL, it is more problematic in the OVPL because it triggers
the license-back as well.

What I would like is views on a potential change to the OVPL to define
the term "make otherwise available". The change would involve capitalizing
all references to "otherwise make available" (and normalizing references
such as "make otherwise available"), and putting in a definition like this:

	"Otherwise Make Available" shall, with reference to software, mean
	the use of that software in such a manner that it may be used by
	one or more parties other than You, or (in the course of their
	employment) your employees, whether such use is achieved by means
	of making that software available to those parties over a computer
	network, or otherwise.

( I do not believe "distribute" needs defining, as it is a recognized legal
term of art. )

Would such a change make the OVPL more acceptable, or less acceptable
(bearing in mind it will increase the number of differences between it and
the CDDL substantially).

Alex