You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> on 2008/09/27 17:32:14 UTC
RE: Apache License v2.0
Arthur Tam asked:
However, back to my question
is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because SpringSource
new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)
Getting back to your question about the Apache License 2.0: As one of the
attorneys for the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), I can vouch for all
software it distributes under its license. All of ASF's open source software
includes source code which is available for free download. [See
www.apache.org <http://www.apache.org/> ]
If some other company were to apply the Apache License 2.0 to their own
software but then not actually provide you with source code to that
software, that's not open source as I understand it. I've never known an
open source company to charge an "unreasonable" fee for source code to their
own open source software. Whether you have standing to sue in court to
demand the source code "for free" is a separate question I would almost
certainly not try to answer publicly here.
/Larry
bcc: Apache legal-discuss list
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
_____
From: Arthur Tam [mailto:arthur_tam2004@yahoo.com.hk]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:32 PM
To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
Dear Lawrence Rosen,
Totally agree with your message which is what I'm understand when I'm
first reading the license GPLv3 and OSD. However, back to my question
is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because SpringSource
new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)
Rgds,
Arthur
John Cowan wrote:
> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
> send it to you. It means that if you have the source, the copyright
> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
>
> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
> you a binary version.
Open source usually means what the OSI-approved license says it means.
For OSL 3.0, "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. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this
obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an
information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and
convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute the
Original Work." [http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php, §4]
So this license places an obligation on the *Licensor* to provide the source
code to licensees regardless of whether any licensee asks for it. Source
either accompanies the Original Work, or it is posted by the Licensor
somewhere convenient. [Or else the Licensor is in breach of his own license
and subject to paying damages and attorney's fees if a licensee can't
actually get the source code!]
With OSL 3.0, any licensee who in turn distributes the Original Work or
Derivative Works to third parties automatically and reciprocally becomes a
*Licensor* and thereby accepts the obligation to provide source. [§1(c), §4]
As for the GPL, the issue with that license is usually whether a licensee
who modifies the code is required to publish *its* source code. I leave that
interpretation for the FSF to write.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:54 AM
> To: Arthur Tam
> Cc: John Cowan; license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
>
> Arthur Tam scripsit:
>
> > Thanks for your rapid reply. But OSI approved Apache License v2.0 which
> > imply it should complied to OSD. However, if just base on the license,
> > a software using Apache License v2.0 can be not open the source. If so,
> > why the license can be approved by OSI. Am I missing something?
>
> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
> send it to you. It means that if you have the source, the copyright
> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
>
> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
> you a binary version.
>
> OSD #2 is different from all the other parts of the OSD. #1 and #3-#10
> are constraints on the *license*: they say, "If a license does not allow
> <whatever>, it is not an Open Source license". But #2 says that if the
> *program* is not available in source form, the *program* is not open
> source. So there are two requirements for a program to be open source:
> the source must be available and the license must conform to the OSD #1
> and #3-#10. If something is not source, then it cannot be open source.
>
> --
> A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan
> "A chemist has poisoned my brain!" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
<http://www.ccil.org/%7Ecowan>
> The cause of his sorrow cowan@ccil.org
> Was para-dichloro-
> Diphenyltrichloroethane. (aka DDT)
Re: Apache License v2.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Arthur Tam asked:
>
> However, back to my question
>
> is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
> the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
> not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because SpringSource
> new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
> release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
> base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
> somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)
Although Larry's answer was 100% correct, I suspect Arthur is asking a very
different question, and that answer is no. Neither the AL does nor the GPL
requires what you are asking about, above. Let's dissect what can happen
from source code X to source code Y.
First, with AL or GPL, if you modify the sources for your use, you are not
required to give your modifications to anyone, period. That's never been
a consideration of OSI designation, except a guarantee that you are free
to make such modifications.
If you modify the sources and redistribute them, the AL and GPL diverge.
In the AL case, you may give them the sources, you are not required to, and
you can simply deliver a binary and the license does not compel you to
deliver the sources of that binary. The GPL, on the other hand, compels
you to provide that source **downstream** to any users of your modified
source code. The GPL, as I mention in the paragraph above, does not
require you to distribute your modifications upstream. Again, all the OSI
license says in this respect is that you have a guarantee that you may
redistribute your modifications.
Neither the AL nor the GPL require the original author to share future
versions of the software under the same license. The author/copyright
holder may offer future versions under the same license, a different
license, or even as closed source. Nothing in any OSI approved license
compels the author to do something in future versions of the work. That
said, the version in your hands under a specific license remains licensed
to you under that original license.
The GPL does require that future work that contains contributions of
others (additional copyright holders) retains the terms of the GPL,
including provision for downstream users to obtain the source code.
So a work can only become other-than-GPL if *all* copyright licensors
agree to offer another license, or if their individual contributions
to the work is already dual licensed under other compatible licenses.
No OSI license compels the author to "release the fixes/patches along
with source code", and I doubt such a license would ever gain traction
among authors. It essentially voids the "No Warranty" clause in virtually
every OSI license. As far as I know, no OSI license today requires the
author to release binary fixes/patches ever. OSI approved licenses are
written with respect to the source code itself.
However, if an Open Source author offers you a binary-only fix or patch
with no sources, you simply would not call that Open Source now, would you?
That simply means that closed source work they handed you is not open source.
And if they continue to "release the fixes in source code somewhere", then
it appears, this remains open source in the first place.
I'm guessing this is a social/cultural difference between Java users and
other open source users. Many open source users have never expected to
be handed binaries, although it's convenient when we get them. Often open
source projects deliver no binaries at all.
The gist of Arthur's question around SpringSource comes down to an apparent
core belief within the Java community that open source licenses convey a
.jar file to them. The confusion's origin is that the .java source code
work is the open source licensed work, the compiled .jar is a derivative
product (and most often, doesn't contain source at all). This has even
been a point of confusion for ASF projects, who had often voted to release
a .jar, whereas the ASF "releases" only source code.
Larry and OSI gurus, I look forward to correction of any misinformation
in the comments above. Usual disclaimers: I am one of 9 directors of the
Apache Software Foundation, also a SpringSource employee, and I am speaking
on behalf of neither organization. These comments above are entirely my own,
and are hopefully productive.
Yours,
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
RE: Apache License v2.0
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Danny Angus wrote:
> ok, I may be wildly off the mark here but as a !lawyer I wonder are we
> missing the point?
> Is the point not that the licensor can do what they choose, i.e. offer
> any kind of licence,
> but the licensee has to comply with the licence
> thats in effect?
> And in this case the licencee believes (rightly or
> wrongly) that the licence is inappropriate for the agreement?
> Not a
> licence problem at all, a people problem.
Licenses are merely statements of what people agree to with respect to
copyrighted or patented IP. If people agree to inappropriate things, yes,
that's a people problem. And this particular question was asked by a person
who doesn't yet understand open source.
Notice, though, that the original email I copied was about SpringSource, not
Apache, and the person making that comment is probably wrong about what he
says about that company.
I copied this to the Apache legal-discuss list because it is an example of
how other companies are using the Apache License for their own works. While
we are proud of this, it also allows those companies (perhaps) to implement
their licensing in unusual ways, such as by not actually providing source
code. We don't monitor such companies' uses of our license.
There is a risk that the name "Apache," as used to refer to a specific
licensing regime with specific commitments of source code, may be diluted.
That is a risk that comes with encouraging others to use our license.
So please let us know if you find companies using the Apache License in ways
that are not appropriate for the ASF image and philosophy. I do not intend
to put SpringSource in that category; I'm just quoting someone else's email.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: danny.angus@gmail.com [mailto:danny.angus@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Danny Angus
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 12:38 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
>
> ok, I may be wildly off the mark here but as a !lawyer I wonder are we
> missing the point?
> Is the point not that the licensor can do what they choose, i.e. offer
> any kind of licence, but the licensee has to comply with the licence
> thats in effect? And in this case the licencee believes (rightly or
> wrongly) that the licence is inappropriate for the agreement? Not a
> licence problem at all, a people problem.
>
> d.
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>
> wrote:
> > Arthur Tam asked:
> >
> > However, back to my question
> >
> > is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
> >
> > the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
> >
> > not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because
> SpringSource
> >
> > new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
> >
> > release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
> >
> > base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
> >
> > somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)
> >
> >
> >
> > Getting back to your question about the Apache License 2.0: As one of
> the
> > attorneys for the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), I can vouch for all
> > software it distributes under its license. All of ASF's open source
> software
> > includes source code which is available for free download. [See
> > www.apache.org]
> >
> >
> >
> > If some other company were to apply the Apache License 2.0 to their own
> > software but then not actually provide you with source code to that
> > software, that's not open source as I understand it. I've never known an
> > open source company to charge an "unreasonable" fee for source code to
> their
> > own open source software. Whether you have standing to sue in court to
> > demand the source code "for free" is a separate question I would almost
> > certainly not try to answer publicly here.
> >
> >
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > bcc: Apache legal-discuss list
> >
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Rosen
> >
> > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> >
> > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> >
> > 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
> >
> > Skype: LawrenceRosen
> >
> > Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
> >
> > Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Arthur Tam [mailto:arthur_tam2004@yahoo.com.hk]
> > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:32 PM
> > To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> > Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> > Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Lawrence Rosen,
> >
> >
> >
> > Totally agree with your message which is what I'm understand when I'm
> >
> > first reading the license GPLv3 and OSD. However, back to my question
> >
> > is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
> >
> > the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
> >
> > not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because
> SpringSource
> >
> > new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
> >
> > release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
> >
> > base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
> >
> > somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)
> >
> >
> >
> > Rgds,
> >
> > Arthur
> >
> >
> >
> > John Cowan wrote:
> >
> >> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
> >
> >> send it to you. It means that if you have the source, the copyright
> >
> >> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
> >
> >> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
> >
> >> you a binary version.
> >
> >
> >
> > Open source usually means what the OSI-approved license says it means.
> >
> >
> >
> > For OSL 3.0, "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. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this
> >
> > obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an
> >
> > information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and
> >
> > convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute
> the
> >
> > Original Work." [http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php, §4]
> >
> >
> >
> > So this license places an obligation on the *Licensor* to provide the
> source
> >
> > code to licensees regardless of whether any licensee asks for it. Source
> >
> > either accompanies the Original Work, or it is posted by the Licensor
> >
> > somewhere convenient. [Or else the Licensor is in breach of his own
> license
> >
> > and subject to paying damages and attorney's fees if a licensee can't
> >
> > actually get the source code!]
> >
> >
> >
> > With OSL 3.0, any licensee who in turn distributes the Original Work or
> >
> > Derivative Works to third parties automatically and reciprocally becomes
> a
> >
> > *Licensor* and thereby accepts the obligation to provide source. [§1(c),
> §4]
> >
> >
> >
> > As for the GPL, the issue with that license is usually whether a
> licensee
> >
> > who modifies the code is required to publish *its* source code. I leave
> that
> >
> > interpretation for the FSF to write.
> >
> >
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Rosen
> >
> > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> >
> > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> >
> > 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
> >
> > Skype: LawrenceRosen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >
> >> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> >
> >> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:54 AM
> >
> >> To: Arthur Tam
> >
> >> Cc: John Cowan; license-discuss@opensource.org
> >
> >> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Arthur Tam scripsit:
> >
> >>
> >
> >> > Thanks for your rapid reply. But OSI approved Apache License v2.0
> which
> >
> >> > imply it should complied to OSD. However, if just base on the
> license,
> >
> >> > a software using Apache License v2.0 can be not open the source. If
> so,
> >
> >> > why the license can be approved by OSI. Am I missing something?
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
> >
> >> send it to you. It means that if you have the source, the copyright
> >
> >> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
> >
> >> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
> >
> >> you a binary version.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> OSD #2 is different from all the other parts of the OSD. #1 and #3-#10
> >
> >> are constraints on the *license*: they say, "If a license does not
> allow
> >
> >> <whatever>, it is not an Open Source license". But #2 says that if the
> >
> >> *program* is not available in source form, the *program* is not open
> >
> >> source. So there are two requirements for a program to be open source:
> >
> >> the source must be available and the license must conform to the OSD #1
> >
> >> and #3-#10. If something is not source, then it cannot be open source.
> >
> >>
> >
> >> --
> >
> >> A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan
> >
> >> "A chemist has poisoned my brain!"
> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> >
> >> The cause of his sorrow cowan@ccil.org
> >
> >> Was para-dichloro-
> >
> >> Diphenyltrichloroethane. (aka DDT)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: Apache License v2.0
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
ok, I may be wildly off the mark here but as a !lawyer I wonder are we
missing the point?
Is the point not that the licensor can do what they choose, i.e. offer
any kind of licence, but the licensee has to comply with the licence
thats in effect? And in this case the licencee believes (rightly or
wrongly) that the licence is inappropriate for the agreement? Not a
licence problem at all, a people problem.
d.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Arthur Tam asked:
>
> However, back to my question
>
> is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
>
> the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
>
> not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because SpringSource
>
> new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
>
> release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
>
> base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
>
> somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)
>
>
>
> Getting back to your question about the Apache License 2.0: As one of the
> attorneys for the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), I can vouch for all
> software it distributes under its license. All of ASF's open source software
> includes source code which is available for free download. [See
> www.apache.org]
>
>
>
> If some other company were to apply the Apache License 2.0 to their own
> software but then not actually provide you with source code to that
> software, that's not open source as I understand it. I've never known an
> open source company to charge an "unreasonable" fee for source code to their
> own open source software. Whether you have standing to sue in court to
> demand the source code "for free" is a separate question I would almost
> certainly not try to answer publicly here.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> bcc: Apache legal-discuss list
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
>
> Skype: LawrenceRosen
>
> Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
>
> Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Arthur Tam [mailto:arthur_tam2004@yahoo.com.hk]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:32 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
>
>
>
> Dear Lawrence Rosen,
>
>
>
> Totally agree with your message which is what I'm understand when I'm
>
> first reading the license GPLv3 and OSD. However, back to my question
>
> is why Apache License v2.0 doesn't require Licensor open the source in
>
> the *stated way* but still approved by OSI. It seems the Apache License
>
> not comply with OSD #2. Why I'm start this thread is because SpringSource
>
> new maintenance policy. I just wonder SpringSource has no obligation to
>
> release the fixes/patches along with source code after the "free" period
>
> base on Apache License v2.0 that you can access by some means (although
>
> somebody say they will release the fixes in source code somewhere)
>
>
>
> Rgds,
>
> Arthur
>
>
>
> John Cowan wrote:
>
>> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
>
>> send it to you. It means that if you have the source, the copyright
>
>> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
>
>>
>
>> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
>
>> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
>
>> you a binary version.
>
>
>
> Open source usually means what the OSI-approved license says it means.
>
>
>
> For OSL 3.0, "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. Licensor reserves the right to satisfy this
>
> obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the Source Code in an
>
> information repository reasonably calculated to permit inexpensive and
>
> convenient access by You for as long as Licensor continues to distribute the
>
> Original Work." [http://opensource.org/licenses/osl-3.0.php, §4]
>
>
>
> So this license places an obligation on the *Licensor* to provide the source
>
> code to licensees regardless of whether any licensee asks for it. Source
>
> either accompanies the Original Work, or it is posted by the Licensor
>
> somewhere convenient. [Or else the Licensor is in breach of his own license
>
> and subject to paying damages and attorney's fees if a licensee can't
>
> actually get the source code!]
>
>
>
> With OSL 3.0, any licensee who in turn distributes the Original Work or
>
> Derivative Works to third parties automatically and reciprocally becomes a
>
> *Licensor* and thereby accepts the obligation to provide source. [§1(c), §4]
>
>
>
> As for the GPL, the issue with that license is usually whether a licensee
>
> who modifies the code is required to publish *its* source code. I leave that
>
> interpretation for the FSF to write.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> Lawrence Rosen
>
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
>
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
>
> 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
>
> Skype: LawrenceRosen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
>
>> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 8:54 AM
>
>> To: Arthur Tam
>
>> Cc: John Cowan; license-discuss@opensource.org
>
>> Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
>
>>
>
>> Arthur Tam scripsit:
>
>>
>
>> > Thanks for your rapid reply. But OSI approved Apache License v2.0 which
>
>> > imply it should complied to OSD. However, if just base on the license,
>
>> > a software using Apache License v2.0 can be not open the source. If so,
>
>> > why the license can be approved by OSI. Am I missing something?
>
>>
>
>> Open Source does not mean that if I have the source, you can make me
>
>> send it to you. It means that if you have the source, the copyright
>
>> owner can't stop you from sending it to whoever you want.
>
>>
>
>> Likewise, the GPL does not mean that if I have the source, you can make
>
>> me send it to you, *unless* I have already (or at the same time) sent
>
>> you a binary version.
>
>>
>
>> OSD #2 is different from all the other parts of the OSD. #1 and #3-#10
>
>> are constraints on the *license*: they say, "If a license does not allow
>
>> <whatever>, it is not an Open Source license". But #2 says that if the
>
>> *program* is not available in source form, the *program* is not open
>
>> source. So there are two requirements for a program to be open source:
>
>> the source must be available and the license must conform to the OSD #1
>
>> and #3-#10. If something is not source, then it cannot be open source.
>
>>
>
>> --
>
>> A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan
>
>> "A chemist has poisoned my brain!" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>
>> The cause of his sorrow cowan@ccil.org
>
>> Was para-dichloro-
>
>> Diphenyltrichloroethane. (aka DDT)