www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Third-party licensing policy: OSL 3.0
Date Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:42:27 GMT
On 10/19/07, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> > Also, it seems that the requirement "Licensor agrees to provide a
> > machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Original Work along
> > with each copy of the Original Work that Licensor distributes." is
> > explicitly opposed to the binary-only requirement for category B
> > libraries.
>
> Note that it is the LICENSOR who provided the software to Apache who must
> provide the source code, not the LICENSEE. Distributing a binary copy
> doesn't breach that condition, as long as the LICENSOR makes his source code
> available or links to it on the web.

I'm sure this will irk Larry, but one source of commentary on both OSL
and AFL is the GPL compatibility page:

"Recent versions of the Open Software License have a term which
requires distributors to try to obtain explicit assent to the license.
This means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites,
sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in
an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation of the
license and would subject you to possible termination of the license.
"

Presumably this refers to the "9) Acceptance and Termination." section:

"If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a
Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the
circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms
of this License."

The FSF assessment seems pretty fair; there's no way we'll be making
any effort to get assent beyond putting the license in the LICENSE
file.

=-=-=

The difference between the two is that the AFL says:

"under any license of your choice that does not contradict the terms
and conditions, including Licensor's reserved rights and remedies, in
this Academic Free License;"

and the OSL says:

"with the proviso that copies of Original Work or Derivative Works
that You distribute or communicate shall be licensed under this Open
Software License;"

[and now to look like a fool by stating an IANAL interpretation]

It's not the same as LGPL in that its only stating conditions that
relate to the OSL'd piece of software. If you change it, you have to
keep it under the OSL. The 'Derivative Works' bit seems pretty clear
and doesn't imply linking or combining.

So, AFL means that if we change the source we can have our changes be
AL 2.0 and the Derivative Work be a combo of AFL and AL 2.0; while OSL
means our changes have to be OSL.

If not for the assent bit, my gut would say class A for AFL and class
B for OSL; with the pondering that all of class B should have a "We
don't change their source" rule. We definitely wouldn't be changing
the OSL source as there are some strong 'everything must be AL 2.0'
opinions. With the assent bit, I don't see how either can be anything
other than class X (non-distributable).

*neck stuck out... counting to 10... waiting for the guillotine* :)

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message