For Approval: Open Vendor Public License (OVPL) and Open Vendor Lesser Public License (OVLPL)

[Matthew Seth Flaschen]

Alex Bligh wrote:

> Matthew,
>
> --On 03 June 2005 22:05 +0000 Matthew Seth Flaschen 
> <superm40 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The license would then imply that you couldn't distribute an
>> OpenVendor-licensed compiler along with third-party software compiled
>> with it, unless the software compiled with it is treated as a
>> Modification, forcing OpenVendor licensing.
>
>
> I understand the problem, but I am not sure yours is the correct way of
> solving it. If this is a problem that needs to be solved (see below), 
> then
> a better way, I think, would be to handle the situation by exception 
> (i.e.
> widely define Other Software, then make an exception for software 
> which is
> purely compiler output. One of the existing OSI licenses does this, 
> though
> I don't seem to be able to find it. I would suggest something like
> adding to the end of 1.6 "excepting, in the case of Covered Software
> whose purpose is to be used in Executable Form as a compiler or other
> software development tool designed to transform Source Code into 
> Executable
> form, use of the Covered Software solely for that purpose".
>
> I think there is also a philosophical difficulty here. If you look at
> (say) a C compiler, as standard it will link in certain functions to
> the resultant .o file. I'm not talking about standard libraries here,
> I am talking about 'builtins'. Clearly they are covered by the terms
> of the license (indeed, intentionally). You would have to get down
> to something pretty basic (assembler, perhaps), before the Covered
> Software added nothing to output - i.e. was purely translatory.
>
> However, I am unsure that in practice this is going to be a problem. What
> you are worried about is the new file being covered by "D" thus 
> becoming a
> Modification. Unless the new file is distributed or otherwise made
> available *WITH* the Original Software, it won't be a modification in any
> case. If they are not distributed together, then the that fact that 
> another
> piece of software distributed with the Covered Software which happens 
> to be
> compiled with the Covered Software is then outside the scope of a Larger
> Work does not, without more, seem to create a licensing problem. I 
> suppose
> where this would bite is if someone like Redhat were to distribute a
> compiler under OVPL in the same distribution as something compiled 
> with it,
> but under a different license. Then Redhat would be reliant on being a
> licensee under the OVPL in order to be able to distribute, which would
> bring the other work into the scope of the Modifications section, which
> I can see might create problems.
>
> I'll think some more on this corner case and see if I can remember how
> it was solved before.
>
> Alex
>
I'm willing to cooperate on that, but there should be some solution