On 05/22/2013 06:13 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:43:27AM +0100, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Additional question: non-copyleft licenses don't require the provision
> of source. If I send you a distribution which is mostly copyleft-next
> but contains a BSDed library, and send you only the binaries of the
> BSDed part, and say "here's the binary; it's under the BSD
licence",
> that would be "Distribut[ing] a Covered Work incorporating material
> governed by a license that is both OSI-Approved and FSF-Free as of the
> release date of this License, provided that Your Distribution complies
> with such other license", but you still wouldn't have the source...
Oh, *that* (unlike your previous issue) was something I thought about.
At least the way I am currently looking at it: I have to provide the
source for the BSD library, because I still have to satisfy the
separate conditions for object code distribution, which apply to the
Derived Work (which we're assuming somehow encompasses the BSD
library). But I also wondered whether failing to make clear that this
was so might be suboptimal, and that may indeed be so.
Is this case any different than AL2.0? I think incorporating AL2.0
components was possible in copyleft-next from very early times, under
this section.
I wonder if there is a difference that I might miss.