Apache License v2.0

[Lawrence Rosen]

> I grant that these two modes of providing access to the source
> are permitted, but I don't see that they are the exclusive modes.
> In particular, Licensor's obligation to provide source code may require
> Licensee to do something not mentioned in the License (such as pay extra
> for it).  

Really? Do you know of anyone who does that?

> The only thing Licensor can't do is to provide no terms at
> all for access to the Source Code.
> 
> (The GPL adds "at no more than the cost of distribution" language to
> prevent such source-code ransoming: as I recall, I urged you to do
> the same.)

And I rejected your urging as unnecessary, adding extra words to solve a
non-problem. Can you show me any real example of source-code ransoming?

> I believe my original point stands: if you have no access to any form
> of a licensed work, you have no rights under its license.  This is a
> Good Thing; otherwise I could round up 100,000 friends and demand that
> you send each of them a copy of any Open Source code you happen to have.

If that was your original point, ok. But I thought your answer strayed way
beyond that into a general statement about how open source and various
licenses work, and in that you were wrong. 

If you want to round up 100,000 friends to copy any of my open source code
or that of any of my clients, tell them to help themselves. The "code" is
posted on various websites. That's how most open source projects work. We
welcome downloads. Those download stats turn into real value sometimes.

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 11:30 AM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
> 
> Lawrence Rosen scripsit:
> 
> > For OSL 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.  [...]"
> 
> Fair enough, but can you be said to be a licensee when you have not
> got either possession of, or access to, the Original Work?  The license
> defines "you" as "an individual or legal entity exercising rights under
> [...] this License".  If you don't have the licensed work in any form,
> you have no rights to exercise.
> 
> > Source
> > either accompanies the Original Work, or it is posted by the Licensor
> > somewhere convenient. [Or else the Licensor is in breach of his own
> license
> > and subject to paying damages and attorney's fees if a licensee can't
> > actually get the source code!]
> 
> I grant that these two modes of providing access to the source
> are permitted, but I don't see that they are the exclusive modes.
> In particular, Licensor's obligation to provide source code may require
> Licensee to do something not mentioned in the License (such as pay extra
> for it).  The only thing Licensor can't do is to provide no terms at
> all for access to the Source Code.
> 
> (The GPL adds "at no more than the cost of distribution" language to
> prevent such source-code ransoming: as I recall, I urged you to do
> the same.)
> 
> > As for the GPL, the issue with that license is usually whether a
> licensee
> > who modifies the code is required to publish *its* source code.
> 
> My point is the same for the GPL: if you don't have access to the source
> *or* the binary, you have no rights under the GPL, or at any rate no
> means of exercising them.
> 
> I believe my original point stands: if you have no access to any form
> of a licensed work, you have no rights under its license.  This is a
> Good Thing; otherwise I could round up 100,000 friends and demand that
> you send each of them a copy of any Open Source code you happen to have.
> 
> --
> You know, you haven't stopped talking           John Cowan
> since I came here. You must have been           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> vaccinated with a phonograph needle.            cowan at ccil.org
>         --Rufus T. Firefly