[License-discuss] Source-attribution licenses and Javascript compatibility

[John Cowan]

Andi McClure scripsit:

> The zlib license refers to "source distributions". The BSD license refers
> to "redistributions of source code". Neither license defines "source code".

[...]

> The Apache and MPL licenses *do* define "source code" (both say something
> like "the form of the work preferred for making modifications"). 

So do the GPLv2 and GPLv3.  Given all that, I think we can say that "source
code" is a term of art, and that a court would interpret it in the same
way across all licenses.  Courts are used to deferring to the community
for the meaning of such expressions.

> Would it be sufficient to use the zlib license and then outside the license
> include a clarifying paragraph like:

Sufficient and perhaps helpful, but not I think necessary.

>     "For purposes of the above license, 'source' is defined as the
> preferred form for making modifications to the code. In other words,
> minified Javascript which is not intended to be modified does not count as
> a 'source distribution'."
> 
> …and if I included such a clarifying paragraph outside the license, would I
> break the magical spell of OSI compliance which zlib normally has?

I don't see how.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.  On the other hand, it is not
the unauthorized practice of law, either.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org
        Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?