Thanks for the response.
Just in case this helps clarify things in terms of the APSL (can't speak for the Reciprocal Public License, sorry)...
(My intent was not to knock specific licenses, but to give some possible examples to help set context.)
The APSL 1.2 (currently now the APSL 2.0, which has no distinction between commercial use or research) does *not* grant different rights depending on whether you use it for commercial or research only.
Understood (both to the assertion and the age of 1.2).
The distinction only comes into play in terms of when a user's obligations to post source of modifications kick in (when "Deployment" is triggered).
In APSL 1.2, as I read it, Deploy is specific to commercial use only. I take this abstractly as imposing more obligations on commercial use than on research use. To me, imposing different obligations on commercial vs research is still a form of discrimination.
This is similar to other OSI licenses, such as the Mozilla Public License -- the trigger point there is "Commercial Use", i.e., distribution to a third party; GPL/LGPL - same thing, it kicks in upon distribution to a third party.
It does not seem equivalent to me. The MPL treats all distribution to third parties uniformly, regardless of whether that distribution was for research or commercial purpose; there's no discrimination. APSL 1.2 seems to discriminate between distribution for research use and distribution for commercial use (by imposing different obligations).
- Bob
-- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
