Subject: Re: Must publish vs. must supply
From: "Abe Kornelis" <>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:34:14 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: David Johnson <>

> > My only point in entering this debate was to point out that the
> > license restrictions suggested by Abe Kornalis do reflect that legal
> > precedent and also reflect the desires of other software authors.
> > Restricting the rights of others to make secret (and perhaps even
> > private) derived works is a right that copyright law has established
> > is within the authors domain.
> True, but legal precedence is not a guarantee of OSD compliance.
--> Agreed.

> Of course, I am not arguing that must-publish clauses are against the
> OSD (even though it may sound like I am). My personal opinion is that I
> don't like them, and would not touch source code covered under one with
> a ten foot pole.
--> You may find this strange, but neither would I. That is, unless I would
       be allowed to keep my modifications private. If ever I decide to
       distribute, I'd be happy to do so to the public. (And given an
       to let someone else do the job for me - I wouldn't hesitate to send
       my modifications to the original author.)
       I'll stress my point one last time (you're bored stiff already,
       I don't doubt) I would offer the recipients of my software
       three choices:
       1) make no modifications.
       2) make mods and keep them private
       3) make mods and publish to the public, either by publishing
           yourself or by passing a copy of the modifications to me.
       Am I imposing undue restrictions or obligations this way?
       As far as I can see, only if you intend to distribute derivatives
       of my software to a select group with explicit intention of
       shielding it from the public. Otherwise - is it such a bother
       to send a copy of your distro to my e-mail account?

> There is no specific section of the OSD that a generic must-publish
> clause conflicts with. However, it may very well conflict with the
> unwritten rule that "there shall be no onerous restrictions."
--> just addressed that one. Of course opinions may differ.

> David Johnson

Kind regards, Abe Kornelis.

license-discuss archive is at