BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process

[Chris Travers]

On 10/12/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
> > The large ones are that the AFL requires source code distribution in
> > some cases,
>
> No it doesn't.  Only if the licensor chooses to put their code under AFL
> is source distributed.


Do you have a different way or reading this (from the AFL 3.0):
"Licensor agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code
of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that
Licensor distributes. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this
obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an
information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and
convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to
distribute the Original Work."

It looks like the obligation to distribute the source *goes away* at
modification but is there by default.
>
> > and furthermore requires that where these cases are met,
> > that mere users of the software outside of one's own organization must
> > be provided with the source as well.
>
> It never requires derivative works be licensed under AFL, or that source
> is provided.  You're confusing it with OSL.
>
Reread the section on external deployment and the source grant
together.  If you deploy the unmodified work so that users outside
your organization may access it, you have to provide them the source.
Once you modify it, this requirement goes away.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers