> The thing is, Section 5 makes them a distributor even if they > merely use the original code without modifications. That's > what really bites.
But so what? How does that bite? Merely being a distributor makes no difference. You only incur the obligation to publish your source code when you have created a Derivative Work. Mere *use* of the software, even to distribute services externally, does not make you the creator of a Derivative Work. The proviso of section 1(c) only requires that the Original Work and Derivative Works be licensed under the OSL. It does not require that a distributor of copies of the Original Work publish the source code of the Original Work. Indeed, because the OSL is not sublicenseable, that obligation to publish the source code remains with the original Licensor, at least for as long as he/she is willing to continue publishing his Original Work. See section 3 regarding the grant of source code license. So that, too, doesn't bite. > Why, no. Is it all one whether you give legal advice by > consulting your lawbooks, or sell copies of those lawbooks to > your clients? If you are forbidden to do the latter, should > you be forbidden to do the former as well? Once again you are misreading the OSL. There is nothing that would require the data that you process through an open source program to itself become open source. So too, if you read a book and use what you read to perform a task, you owe nothing but gratitude to the author of the book. You are stretching the definition of Derivative Work beyond credulity. > Well, if I sent an email to someone who has cause not to like > me, he might suddenly have standing to sue: I would not be > not fulfilling the obligations of a distributor to him. Ahhhh. I didn't realize you are a distributor of a modified Elm open source program. I'll sue you myself if someone will pay the attorney's fees. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3