Re: Adaptive Public License review
John, thank you for taking the time to review the entire license. My responses to your comments/suggestions are embedded below: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... SHOW-STOPPER: 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.) 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: 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 for three full years in all cases except internal deployment is burdensome. This 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? 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
Re: Adaptive Public License review
Carmen Leeming scripsit: 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) Excellent. 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. I suggest something like including, but not limited to, distribution by FTP, HTTP, CD, or DVD. The phrase including, but not limited to is very useful, as it provides examples without constraining implementation. The requirement to make the source of Subsequent Works available for three full years in all cases except internal deployment is burdensome. This 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? In fact, I am not thrilled with the whole idea of compelled publication of Subsequent Works at all: it means, for example, that I can't make changes to the source of an APLed application and then email the source to a friend of mine without also publishing the source on a Web site. Indeed, if it weren't for the internal-deployment provision, I would argue that compelling publication makes the license not open source. I don't know if you care about the FSF's certifying the APL as a free software license: historically, they have considered compelled-publication licenses unfree. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense . The redline PDF at http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0-redline.pdf shows how the GPL rule was added to the 2.0 version of the APSL, allowing either full publication or source-follows-executable rules. Both this and the earlier 1.2 version of the APSL use 12 months rather than 36 as the maximum required publication period. IMHO the GPL's rule that source must accompany (or follow) executable is really enough. But this is a topic on which reasonable persons can differ. -- Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
