Subject: Re: Section 2 source distribution terms (was Re: GPL vs APSL (was: YAPL is bad))
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:53:26 -0400 (EDT)

Karsten M. Self writes:
 > Proposed language:
 > 
 >     2. Source Code
 > 
 >     The license most provide for distribution in source code as well as
 >     compiled form.  Where some form of a product is not distributed with
 >     source code, there must be a well publicized means of obtaining the
 >     source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost --
 >     preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge or access
 >     restrictions.  The source code so offered must be in the preferred
 >     form in which a programmer would modify the program.  Deliberately
 >     obfuscated source code does not qualify.  Intermediate forms such as
 >     the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.  For
 >     licenses in which distribution without source is allowed, an OSD
 >     Qualifying Distribution shall be defined as an offering of the
 >     software, under qualifying license terms, with source or an offer of
 >     source as described in this paragraph.

Good.  Close.  Better than my previous attempt.  What do you think
of this:

    2. Source Code

    The license applies to source code.  A compiled executable is
    considered a derived work.  Such an executable is only open source
    if its source code is also open source.  When a compiled
    executable is not distributed with source code, there must be a
    well publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more
    than a reasonable reproduction cost -- preferably, downloading via
    the Internet without charge or access restrictions.  The source
    code so offered must be in the preferred form in which a
    programmer would modify the program.  Deliberately obfuscated
    source code does not qualify.  Intermediate forms such as the
    output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Of course, a big problem with the OSD is that it talks about legal
requirements, and yet was not touched by a lawyer before being cast
into stone.  Any kind of extensive rewrite probably ought to be done
by people with actual experience with the law, as opposed to
dilettantes like you and I.

-- 
-russ nelson <sig@russnelson.com>  http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | of war.  For my take, see:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | http://quaker.org/crime.html
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3