[License-review] Legacy Approval: APL AROS Public License.

Karl Fogel kfogel at red-bean.com
Fri Jul 27 21:38:42 UTC 2012

John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> writes:
>Karl Fogel scripsit:
>> While this in itself does not make the code non-open-source, it is,
>> shall we say, a *highly* unusual way to run an open source project.  
>Let's not confuse open source as a licensing strategy with its homonym,
>open source as a development process.  Providing access to the source only
>on request is well within the limits of the licensing strategy: indeed,
>it's what the FSF used to do, providing source on tape only on request.
>Indeed, a demand to prove satisfactorily that you have a copy of the
>binary before you can get the source would still not violate the OSD.

I thought I took care not to say that (did you miss the "non-" in my
statement above)?


>> In any case, I'm not sure it would make sense for OSI to approve a
>> license (which is a very long-lasting act) because of a temporary
>> political delay on the part of the licensor(s).  The AROS team is going
>> to solve this decision problem eventually -- hopefully soon, and they'll
>> do it sooner if there's a strong motivation.  Relicensing under Mozilla
>> 2.0, which is already OSI-approved, could be that motivation.
>I agree as a practical matter.
>> Again, there is still the more urgent question of who exactly owns the
>> copyright now.  If you're having trouble figuring out who can decide
>> about relicensing, then you may have larger issues on your hands.
>The Scheme standard has operated with unclear copyright since 1985, with
>major published revisions in 1986, 1991, 1998, 2007, and if all goes well
>2012 as well, each with a new set of editors (really authors/revisers).
>The license, which is trivially Open Source, has always said:
>    We intend this report to belong to the entire Scheme community,
>    and so we grant permission to copy it in whole or in part without
>    fee. In particular, we encourage implementors of Scheme to use this
>    report as a starting point for manuals and other documentation,
>    modifying it as necessary.

More information about the License-review mailing list