Bjorn Reese wrote: > I have to agree with David. The documentation quality of the > source code is orthogonal to the availability of source code, > and thus has nothing to do with the OSD.
I also agree with you and David as far as that goes, but that's not quite the point I was making. I don't want the OSD to legislate quality of documentation or quality of software. What I DO want is, if you will, a cause of action for someone who provides lower quality documentation than he actually has in his possession. Nobody should be required to write documentation, but if he does he should share it along with the source code. Why not? That addresses the *deliberate* obfuscation issue. I wrote the Source Code provision (Section 3) of the OSL with that specific point in mind: "The term "Source Code" means the preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and all available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work. Licensor hereby agrees to provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes...." Note the use of the phrase "all available documentation" in the first sentence. Similarly, the phrase "preferred form" in that sentence means that whatever the form that the author prefers for his source code is the form he should provide it in. We should require no more and expect no less. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
