Subject: Re: OVPL & "Otherwise Make Available" (was RE: Change ot topic, back to OVPL)
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:01:50 +0100



--On 26 August 2005 07:13 -0700 Michael Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net> wrote:

>> > It seems to me that closing the 'ASP loophole' in combination with the
>> > license-back to the ID violates the spirit of the OSD, though I don't
>> > think I can explain why.
>> >
>> Could you at least provide an example of how this might violate the
>> spirit  of the OSD? As it stands, it seems perfectly compatible with the
>> OSD to me.
>
> Well, for example, it seems like this combination forces you to reveal
> the fact that you are using some particular piece of software, if it is
> licensed under the OVPL and being run as a service.

Let us assume by "using some particularly piece of software ... as a
service" you mean allowing third parties to use it as a service (else, it
isn't distribution, or Otherwise Making Available, and thus the above is
incorrect simply because the clause does not bite).

What you say above is not true. It forces you either to provide source to
the third party users (i.e. publish your changes).

The OSL also forces you to publish your source when you "distribute" the
software, which under the OSL includes "External Deployment" which covers
the scenario above (assuming you mean what we assumed).

I don't see why either case is against the OSD. You may well not /like/ it
(I gave Larry off list some examples of why this would have proved
problematic to me doing some open-source work a while ago under either the
OSD or the OVPL), but I don't see which OSD principle it breaks.

Alex