On Thursday 14 March 2002 09:34 pm, Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote: > 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?
I'm sorry, it appears to be my mistake. I had assumed (ass-u-me) that the discussion was more about than just modifications, but copying and usage as well. Such acts could still be of a concern in the ASP issue. In addition, you did mention "public performance", and that didn't fit with the APSL. -- David Johnson ___________________ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
