Subject: Re: Adaptive Public License
From: TW <zupftom@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:02:51 +0200

 Wed, 18 May 2011 11:02:51 +0200
By the way, I found that the formatting of
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apl-1.0 is not consistent.  I guess
section headings should consistently be <strong>, but at 2.3. the
number isn't, and starting from 3.9., the entire heading isn't strong
any more, with the exception of 3.11.

Thomas W.


2011/5/14 TW <zupftom@googlemail.com>:
> Thanks for the clarification!
>
> 2011/5/13 John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>:
>> TW scripsit:
>>
>>> what does this section mean?  Does it mean something similar to the
>>> GPL section that says, the FSF may publish revised versions of the
>>> GPL, and any GPLed work may be used/distributed/modified under the
>>> revised version,
>>
>> There is no such GPL provision.  When the GPL is *applied*, it is common
>> to use language like "version 2 or any later version", but some works,
>> like the Linux kernel, just say "version 2" and so version 3 is not
>> applicable to them.
>>
>
> Ah, I see.  That's something I haven't been aware of.
>
>>> Wouldn't this give the Initial Contributor a lot of control over
>>> Subsequent Works, even if most of the work has been done by others
>>> after his Initial Contribution?  Could a revised/new version of the
>>> License be a completely different license like the GPL or a so called
>>> "Shared Source" license?  Would any Person be allowed to use any
>>> Subsequent Works that *predate* the revision of the License under the
>>> revised License?
>>
>> Yes to all of these questions.  However, the licensee is always free to
>> use the older version if they prefer it.
>>
>
> So this is a bit of an ambivalent license.  On the one hand, it's
> pretty permissive for Subsequent Contributors and users.  On the other
> hand, as opposed to any other contributor, the Initial Contributor has
> the right to use, modify and distribute Subsequent Works under
> virtually any conditions, even as closed source software.  He can
> therefore profit from others' contributions while being able to
> prevent other contributors from in turn taking advantage of his future
> contributions, if he so choses.
>
> Thomas W.
>