For Approval: Socialtext Public License ("STPL")

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Fri Mar 9 13:42:34 UTC 2007

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>   I don't think there would be an OSD #10 problems if HTTP, and possibly
>> the unnecessary "You must not remove that facility from the Contributor
>> Version" were removed.  All network apps should be able to implement
>> this, even if it is just a link to a source zip.
> But it said the "covered code" what if I want to re-purpose part of it
> as a non-network app..
> It does not make provision for a non-network app.

Yes, it does.  I already described this in a previous email.  It says
source only has to be offered to "all users interacting with the
Contributor Version through a computer network".  If there aren't any,
then no source has to be offered.

>>> Larry Rosen gave a history of the clause in the previous discussion and
>>> it was originally prompted by click-through licenses.
>> Can you give us some pointers to this discussion?

Okay, I remember that.  I thought you were referring to Affero-type
licenses specifically.
>>   I would suggest that this is substantively similar and I question
>>> whether it really adds much these days.  Google/email pretty much serve
>>> the same purpose.
>> What purpose?  How does that handle private modifications in an ASP
>> scenario?
>>   Moreover just requiring the license be included in distibutions with
>> notification of
> You can email someone to get the source :-)

Yes, but there's no guarantee it's the same source a particular service
is using.

> thanks for clarifying.

Sure.  You seem to use versionless LGPL for some code, so you probably
want to look at the GPLv3 draft (, which
optionally allows:

"terms that require, if a modified version of the material they cover is
a work intended to interact with users through a computer network, that
those users be able to obtain copies of the Corresponding Source of the
work through the same network session; or"

This is designed for compatibility with Affero GPL, which was
specifically authorized by the FSF.  STPL would still certainly be
GPL-incompatible because MPL is (and the splash screen requirement sure
wouldn't help).  FYI, LGPLv3 is going to expressed as GPLv3+permissions

Matthew Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list