On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 02:46:05AM +0300, Engel Nyst wrote:
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?
No, the analysis is the same.
I think incorporating AL2.0
components was possible in copyleft-next from very early times, under
this section.
Right. That clarification was only thought necessary because in the
GPL universe there's at least one legitimate reason for thinking that
the Apache License 2.0 is incompatible with GPLv2, and copyleft-next
was thought to incorporate the doctrine of GPL incompatibility.
- RF