Subject: RE: Apache License v2.0
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:47:05 -0700

 Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:47:05 -0700
John Cowan wrote:
> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
> send it to you.  It means that if you have the source, the copyright
> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
> 
> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
> you a binary version.

Open source usually means what the OSI-approved license says it means. 

For OSL 3.0, "Licensor 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. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this
obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an
information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and
convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute the
Original Work." [http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php, 4]

So this license places an obligation on the *Licensor* to provide the source
code to licensees regardless of whether any licensee asks for it. Source
either accompanies the Original Work, or it is posted by the Licensor
somewhere convenient. [Or else the Licensor is in breach of his own license
and subject to paying damages and attorney's fees if a licensee can't
actually get the source code!]

With OSL 3.0, any licensee who in turn distributes the Original Work or
Derivative Works to third parties automatically and reciprocally becomes a
*Licensor* and thereby accepts the obligation to provide source. [1(c), 4]

As for the GPL, the issue with that license is usually whether a licensee
who modifies the code is required to publish *its* source code. I leave that
interpretation for the FSF to write. 

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen




> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:54 AM
> To: Arthur Tam
> Cc: John Cowan; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
> 
> Arthur Tam scripsit:
> 
> > Thanks for your rapid reply. But OSI approved Apache License v2.0 which
> > imply it should complied to OSD. However, if just base on the license,
> > a software using Apache License v2.0 can be not open the source. If so,
> > why the license can be approved by OSI. Am I missing something?
> 
> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
> send it to you.  It means that if you have the source, the copyright
> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
> 
> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
> you a binary version.
> 
> OSD #2 is different from all the other parts of the OSD.  #1 and #3-#10
> are constraints on the *license*: they say, "If a license does not allow
> <whatever>, it is not an Open Source license".  But #2 says that if the
> *program* is not available in source form, the *program* is not open
> source.  So there are two requirements for a program to be open source:
> the source must be available and the license must conform to the OSD #1
> and #3-#10.  If something is not source, then it cannot be open source.
> 
> --
> A mosquito cried out in his pain,               John Cowan
> "A chemist has poisoned my brain!"              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>         The cause of his sorrow                 cowan@ccil.org
>         Was para-dichloro-
> Diphenyltrichloroethane.                                (aka DDT)