Subject: Re: Apache chairman: Days numbered for commercial software
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:31:55 +0900

>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro de Medeiros <pedro.medeiros@gmail.com> writes:

    Pedro> Another problem is that the previous definition of
    Pedro> distribution from that license relies on the common
    Pedro> definition of distribution, so it is not exactly
    Pedro> intuitive. Besides, isn't it circular definition? :)

What I find unclear about Section 5 of the OSL is that it says "makes
the *application* available over the network."  That sounds like the
application binary is distributed by NFS or Samba, or as a .jar.  I
would be happier if it referred to *communication with the
application* and *application services*.

    >> OTOH, if you assume that the in-house software was written by
    >> relying on open-source software whose license defines
    >> distribution to include works that are made available as a
    >> service outside the company (for instance), then you have a
    >> quite different picture.

    Pedro> Is there any open source license that uses that particular
    Pedro> definition of distribution? I know of none. If this is the
    Pedro> case, non-distributed software is, for all practical means,
    Pedro> moot.

The Apple Public Source Licence (sp?), although the FSF didn't accept
that as a free software license, it is OSI-certified.  Larry Rosen's
"Open Source License" (although I don't personally know of anything
licensed under it yet).  I believe the FSF does class the OSL as a
free license, but complains that it's incompatible with the GPL (no
surprise).

By the way, wonderful book, Larry!


-- 
Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory