Re: Open Software License
On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 19:34, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > The Open Software License
> > v. 1.0
>
> > 3) Grant of Source Code License. The term "Source Code" means the
> > preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and
> > all available documentation describing how to access and modify the
> > Original Work. Licensor hereby 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.
> ...
>
> This is phrased very oddly. I think the intent is for this to apply to
> derived works, where "you" becomes "licensor" and the downstream recipient
> becomes "you". I don't think it's non-free, just hard to follow.
>
> > 5) External Deployment. The term "External Deployment" means the use
> > or distribution of the Original Work or Derivative Works in any way
> > such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be accessed or
> > used by anyone other than You, whether the Original Work or Derivative
> > Works are distributed to those persons, made available as an
> > application intended for use over a computer network, or used to
> > provide services or otherwise deliver content to anyone other than
> > You. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You
> > agree that any External Deployment by You shall be deemed a
> > distribution and shall be licensed to all under the terms of this
> > License, as prescribed in section 1(c) herein.
>
> Whee! I haven't changed my mind since the Affero discussion. I
> personally think it's a non-free use restriction to declare that "deliver
> content to anyone other than You" is equivalent to distribution of the
> software.
I agree strongly; in a networked world all software potentially falls
under such clauses, and then, the only persons able to use software
under such licenses are those who are willing to undertake the
obligations of publication. Forced publication requirements have always
been a problem before, when they applied to a far smaller set of people,
and I don't see why it should be any better that every user is forced to
publish the software. In theory, it's a great way to increase the
availability of the software, but in practice, it limits the usage to
those with the resources and the ability to publish it. If I run such
software on a network-accessible port over a dial-up connection, am I in
violation of the license for disconnecting when *I'm* done, as opposed
to when whoever's downloading the source code off my is done? If I run
the software on a network-connected cellphone or PDA where I pay per
byte, do I have to offer the source for download through the
phone/PDA? If I run an email auto-responder service from behind a NAT
firewall, do I have to email the sources, too?
Personally, I doubt that any software so useful that it warrants letting
this particular camel's nose into the tent; I can see the rest of the
camel from here, and it's going to ruin the tent.
--
Stephen Ryan <taketwoaspirin@deepthought.dartmouth.edu>
Reply to: