Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:09:40 -0400

Arthur Tam scripsit:

> Totally agree with your message which is what I'm understand when I'm
> first reading the license GPLv3 and OSD. However, back to my question
> is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
> the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
> not comply with OSD #2. 

As I explained earlier, OSD #2 is about open source software, not about
open source licenses.  A license is open source if it complies with #1
and #3-10.  Software is open source if it complies with #2 and is licensed
under an open source license.

-- 
Is a chair finely made tragic or comic? Is the          John Cowan
portrait of Mona Lisa good if I desire to see           cowan@ccil.org
it? Is the bust of Sir Philip Crampton lyrical,         http://ccil.org/~cowan
epical or dramatic?  If a man hacking in fury
at a block of wood make there an image of a cow,
is that image a work of art? If not, why not?               --Stephen Dedalus