For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)

[Matthew Flaschen]

David Woolley wrote:
> "make available" seems to be a technical term that needs defining, as
> well.

I would interpret it as offering for download.  However, Sun originally
 interpreted it as including ASP scenarios.

>>     (c)    the licenses granted in Sections 2.2(a) and 2.2(b) are
>> effective on the date Contributor first makes Commercial Use of the
>> Covered Code. 
> 
> As I read this, you must distribute or otherwise make available
> (whatever that means) the code, before you can modify it, or in
> countries, like, I believe the UK, that consider use of software
> protected, even run it.

This is technically right (since the MPL was drafted for U.S. law), but
it's too late now (OSI was practically formed to embrace the Mozilla
project) and I don't think it would be feasible to prevent private
modification or use of MPL code, even in the U.K.

  Given the strange definition of commercial,
> which doesn't require any commercial transaction, even a home user
> doesn't get a licence until they distribute or make available.

Well, the license /shouldn't/ (because of OSD #6 and the "selling" word
in OSD #1) discriminate against commercial use.  Despite the strange
phrasing, it actually does not.

Matt Flaschen