David Johnson wrote... > On Wednesday 13 March 2002 10:40 pm, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > > I just want to point out that there is one license > > already approved which has a "public performance" > > clause like Bruce gave as an example.. > > > > The OSI approved the APSL, with clauses 2.2c-d, which require > > publication of sources upon "deployment." > > You don't have the APSL quite right. Clause 2.2d only applies to "Your > Deployed Modifications."
Of course. The discussion was how to get modified source code published when someone is operating as an ASP. What part did I misunderstand? > > Clause 2.2d merely requires a prominent notice of the license for binary only > deployments. It can only be triggered by the creation of a derivative work, > since compilation is considered derivation. You describe the triggering condition accurately enough. But do you really interpret that it "merely requires a ... notice"? After all, the APSL says the notice must include information about how and where to obtain the modified source code which you deployed. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
