Followup on Exhibit B licences

[Matthew Flaschen]

Timothy McIntyre wrote:
> My comments inline, below:
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>
>> Timothy McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> Wherever software distribution is mentioned in the license, we added
>> the phrase "or otherwise makes available," in order to cover passive
>> types of distribution, such as with ASPs.  This modification to the
>> MPL also appears in the CDDL.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I'm curious why you believe that the phrase "or otherwise makes
>> available" is sufficient to plug the ASP loophole and to require that
>> the source code of /internal/ modifications of licensed software must
>> be disclosed simply because the software is accessed over a network?
>> Is that phrase clearly defined in the CDDL? Or is there some commonly
>> understood meaning that is found in legal authorities? Your
>> interpretation may be surprising to Sun (who owns the CDDL) and its
>> customers, who probably do not expect that CDDL-licensed software is
>> subject to an ASP provision. Perhaps one of Sun's attorneys here can
>> clear this up.
>>
> According to Sun's own explanation of the CDDL, "[w]herever software
> distribution is mentioned, [we] added the phrase "or otherwise makes
> available" to cover passive types of distribution, such as with ASPs." 
> This explanation is posted on their website at 
> http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_details.html

Thanks for posting that.  Interestingly, they don't mention it rationale
in the CDDL FAQ for OpenSolaris
(http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/), which would be
a pretty big omission since I think OpenSolaris is used quite often for
network servers.  Perhaps they've turned away from that interpretation?

Matthew Flaschen