[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...
SHOW-STOPPER:The intention of Section 3.2 was to require the "Free Redistribution" of the executable. After reviewing the wording of this section, I can see that it violates OSD #1. I can remove a portion of the offending line to make it conform:
Though the APL is MPL-ish in nature, it has a few provisions modeled after the GPL, but intensified in such a way that I believe they violate OSD #1. In particular, Section 3.2 requires that any distribution of Executable code charge no more than the distribution cost. This means that binary packages of the APLed work can't be put on CD-ROMs that are sold above cost, as most distro makers do. We have held in the past that this sort of thing makes a license not open source.
Section 3.3(b) makes the same requirement, but only in respect of source code distributed separately from Executable code. The GPL also makes this restriction, and it is a reasonable one: it prevents people from freely distributing the Executable form and holding the source for ransom. (This could only happen in practice in the case of a Subsequent Work.)
"A Distributor may choose to distribute the Licensed Work, or any portion thereof, in Executable form (an "EXECUTABLE DISTRIBUTION") to any third party, under the terms of Section 2 of this License, provided the Executable Distribution is made available under and accompanied by a copy of this License ***and is distributed at no more than the cost of physically performing Executable Distribution***, AND provided at least ONE of the following conditions is fulfilled:"
(section between '***' marks to be removed)
LESSER POINTS:
The license should make clear that CD and DVD distribution count as
Electronic Distribution, though they are not performed over a wire.
We used the same definition of Electronic Distribution Mechanism as used in the MPL. Specifically mentioning CDs and DVDs as Electronic Distribution Mechanisms leaves out other valid current methods, as well as future methods that may become standard. I'm open to changing this, but would invite other comments on how specific we want to get with this definition.
The requirement to make the source of Subsequent Works available forThis clause (3.1a) was to promote the continued availablity of the Subsequent Works, but we could reduce the time-frame if it is too burdensome. What time would you suggest as reasonable?
three full years in all cases except internal deployment is burdensome.
CONCLUSION:
If the offending language in Section 3.2 is removed, the AFL should be passed as an open source license.
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
