Andi McClure scripsit: > The zlib license refers to "source distributions". The BSD license refers > to "redistributions of source code". Neither license defines "source code".
[...] > The Apache and MPL licenses *do* define "source code" (both say something > like "the form of the work preferred for making modifications"). So do the GPLv2 and GPLv3. Given all that, I think we can say that "source code" is a term of art, and that a court would interpret it in the same way across all licenses. Courts are used to deferring to the community for the meaning of such expressions. > Would it be sufficient to use the zlib license and then outside the license > include a clarifying paragraph like: Sufficient and perhaps helpful, but not I think necessary. > "For purposes of the above license, 'source' is defined as the > preferred form for making modifications to the code. In other words, > minified Javascript which is not intended to be modified does not count as > a 'source distribution'." > > …and if I included such a clarifying paragraph outside the license, would I > break the magical spell of OSI compliance which zlib normally has? I don't see how. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. On the other hand, it is not the unauthorized practice of law, either. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"? _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
