Karsten M. Self writes:
- Ensure that sources are distributable.
Not only distributable, but also available.
Sigh. Last time I sat down to rewrite #2, I ended up concluding that
we really need to have *two* OSD's: one describing source code, and
another describing the distribution of a
-
From: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Bcc:
Subj: Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL
(was: YAPL is bad))
Type: IPM.Note
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 12:55
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. writes:
It's my understanding that OSI is trying to come up with a plan to review
the OSD.
From my message that you quoted?? No, no plan, but instead more like
dreams. Larry has told us more than once that the OSD looks to a
lawyer like a computer program written by
On Monday 24 September 2001 11:08 am, Greg London wrote:
OR (B)
you distribute a binary in one kit.
and you make the source code freely available.
(preferably downloading for free on the net)
those are the only two options of the OSD.
You err slightly in (B). The OSD says that there must
David Johnson wrote:
On Monday 24 September 2001 11:08 am, Greg London wrote:
You err slightly in (B). It does not mean that
the source code must be made equally available
to those without the binary.
you missed my following paragraph that said (paraphrasing)
:(B) somewhat implies public
begin Greg London quotation:
It seems to me that the MIT does not meet
item #2 of the OSD, then.
You're confusing source code of the original work with source code of
derivative works. Under MIT / BSD / similar, you're not guaranteed
access to the latter.
I suppose it would be physically
Greg London wrote:
In the case of the MIT license, Bob certainly
*can* charge Alice a million
bucks for the source, but the license would
still be an Open Source license.
It seems to me that the MIT does not meet
item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes
above and beyond #2 requirements.
Greg London [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part)
It seems to me that the MIT does not meet
item #2 of the OSD, then. The APSL goes
above and beyond #2 requirements. But the
MIT license seems to fall short.
OSD #2 seems to be setting a clear minimum
requirement that source code must be
Greg London [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part)
It seems to me that the MIT does not meet
item #2 of the OSD, then.
An Open Source license is _not_ required to prohibit someone from making
a version of the software that is closed source. And since someone can
do that without changing the
Bruce Perens wrote:
Both the MIT license and Public Domain
fit under both the
OSD and RMS's definition of Free Software,
is it possible to take GPL'ed code,
modify it, relicense it under
a proprietary license, and distribute
it only in binary form?
my understanding is it is not possible.
begin Greg London quotation:
I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2. Since OSD #2 says
the program MUST include source code There is nothing in the MIT
license to guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the definition.
Ahem. Nostalgic for freshman philosophy?
It would be physically
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Greg London wrote:
is it possible to take GPL'ed code,
modify it, relicense it under
a proprietary license, and distribute
it only in binary form?
my understanding is it is not possible.
but MIT'ed code would allow this.
Irrelevant. Is it possible to take APSL'ed
begin Matthew C. Weigel quotation:
I also think that the OSD contributes to this misunderstanding - I
think the wording of the introduction should be rewritten to not
suggest the distribution terms have to meet the OSD, but the
distribution terms or the distribution itself.
Actually, I
On Tuesday 25 September 2001 02:31 pm, Greg London wrote:
I am saying the MIT license does not meet OSD #2.
Since OSD #2 says
the program MUST include source code
There is nothing in the MIT license to
guarantee OSD#2, so it fails to meet the
definition.
Fine. I distribute an MIT licensed
Rick Moen writes:
The existence of a set of guidelines fortunately doesn't bar the Board
-- or the rest of us -- from applying common sense. E.g., Sorry, but
software without source code cannot be open source.
Yup.
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells
Some have said that the MIT/BSD licenses do not REQUIRE access to the source
code, and where the licenses PERMIT access to the source code, code forking
is permitted for redistributions of modified works. I think this is correct
although the list of conditions clauses in the license are so
Karsten M. Self writes:
Proposed language:
2. Source Code
The license most provide for distribution in source code as well as
compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with
source code, there must be a well publicized means of obtaining the
Rob Myers wrote:
I agree, but I believe that this is a general problem with the *idea* of
Open Source rather than Apple's implementation of it.
I don't think so, no, not at all. Consider these scenarios:
Scenario A:
1. John grabs GNU Hello from a handy GNU mirror site.
2. John fixes the
% OSD 2:
% The program must include source code, ...
%
% When some [program] is not distributed with
% source code, there must be a well-publicized
% means of obtaining the source code
%
% preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge.
so, according to OSD, you have two options
Whether or not you think Apple's behavior
is legitimate, do you now agree that there
is a real behavioral difference between the
GPL and the APSL on this score?
civil action is not the differntiating factor.
Apple's behaviour is no different than if it were
GPL, and John failed to produce
begin Greg London quotation:
The difference is APSL does not give you the option
of limiting source code to people to whom you give
your distributions. OSD allows source code to be
contained within a circle of friends.
That is exactly it. Thank you for clarifying the matter. I was very
21 matches
Mail list logo
