Subject: Re: OVPL summary
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:51:38 +0100



--On 14 September 2005 14:15 -0700 Michael Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net> 
wrote:

> It's the 'otherwise make available' phrase that is worrisome to me.
> You've made it clear that this *is* intended to close the
> 'software-as-a-service' loophole, so that, for example, an otherwise
> undistributed-but-modified OVPL licensed SMTP server would (by virtue of
> being publicly accessible) not qualify as a private change, and would
> require disclosure of the modifications to the ID.

So you have the same concern as Andrew.

The "otherwise make available" phrase is straight out of the CDDL (I
think it didn't come from the MPL).

I took it it to mean the same as "external deployment" in the OSL. Larry
actually defines this (which is good), though I am not sure his definition
totally fixes the borderline cases. See the thread entitled:
 OVPL & "Otherwise Make Available" (was RE: Change ot topic,back to OVPL)
where just the case you bring up (SMTP server) was discussed extensively
(in the context of both licenses)

A while ago (25 Aug 2005) I posted a change to "otherwise make available"
based on language similar to Larry's. Would that fix the issue for you?

> "Otherwise Make Available" shall, with reference to software, mean the
> use of that software in such a manner that it may be used by one or more
> parties other than You, or (in the course of their employment) Your
> employees, or (in the exclusive course of their duties to You) Your
> contractors, whether such use is achieved by means of making that
> software available to those parties over a computer network, or otherwise.

(& Andrew - that's the thing from the archives I said I'd find)

Alex