Subject: Re: Feedback on the OPPL
From: "Larry E. Masters" <lmasters@nextco.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:23:01 -0600

Ernest

>
> I'll let someone else comment on the Patent and Termination clauses, 
> but I was most confused by 4(b) and  5(a):


Do you think there is something wrong with the Patent and Termination 
clause?

They are in many of the other OSI approved licenses already:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php Section 9 and 10
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php Section 8.2
Just to name a few

The 2 sections you noted are  the same as the Q Public License which is 
already an OSI approved license

Section 4 (b) QPL

b. You must ensure that all recipients of the machine-executable forms 
are also able to receive the complete machine-readable source code to 
the distributed Software, including all modifications, without any 
charge beyond the costs of data transfer, and place prominent notices in 
the distribution explaining this.

Section 6 (a) QPL

a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of 
these items are also able to receive and use the complete 
machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond the 
costs of data transfer.

> I also find the dual use of "Derivative Works" and "modifications" 
> confusing.  Are they the same thing? Is one a subset of the other?  Or 
> do you consider them orthogonal?


I would have to say orthogonal...
Derivative would be a "fork" as many call it in the OS community, or 
taking a portion of the code and creating new Software from it.

Modifications would be modifying the code as a "whole package"
We could require that modifications be distrubuted as patches if this 
would remove some of the confusion

Larry E. Masters