Apache License v2.0

[John Cowan]

Arthur Tam scripsit:

> Thanks for your rapid reply. But OSI approved Apache License v2.0 which
> imply it should complied to OSD. However, if just base on the license,
> a software using Apache License v2.0 can be not open the source. If so,
> why the license can be approved by OSI. Am I missing something?

Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
send it to you.  It means that if you have the source, the copyright
owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.

Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
you a binary version.

OSD #2 is different from all the other parts of the OSD.  #1 and #3-#10
are constraints on the *license*: they say, "If a license does not allow
<whatever>, it is not an Open Source license".  But #2 says that if the
*program* is not available in source form, the *program* is not open
source.  So there are two requirements for a program to be open source:
the source must be available and the license must conform to the OSD #1
and #3-#10.  If something is not source, then it cannot be open source.

-- 
A mosquito cried out in his pain,               John Cowan
"A chemist has poisoned my brain!"              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        The cause of his sorrow                 cowan at ccil.org
        Was para-dichloro-
Diphenyltrichloroethane.                                (aka DDT)