Socialtext Public License
From WhyNotWiki
https://www.socialtext.net/open/index.cgi?socialtext_public_license
[edit] The Appendix
Why the Appendix (http://www.socialtext.net/open/index.cgi?why_the_appendix).
Socialtext Public License (SPL) license contains two additional Appendices not found in the original Mozilla Public License, version 1.1.Firstly, an attribution clause, which we are submitting for consideration as a standard before OSI. For discussion on this, see Attribution Memo
Secondly, a clause on network use, which reads:
3.8. Network Use. If the Covered Code as You received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version You received, such a user has the opportunity to request transmission to that user (whether through an Electronic Distribution Mechanism or otherwise) of the complete Source Code of the Covered Code, You must not remove that facility from the Contributor Version, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with the Contributor Version through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete Source Code of the Contributor Version.
In much less bloated legalese, this means: if you install the Socialtext Open Source code on a web server, and you make the server accessible to others, then you're also required to give them, upon request, the code used to make that thing happen. That's a bit of a deviation from the old adage that compiled code (such as, say, Mozilla, or Sendmail, or Exim, or vim, or others) must only be distributed if you're also willing to distribute the source code for that application.
Why did we do it? Well, because we believe that a lot of the spirit of Open Source is being circumvented these days. When the GPL and other licenses were written, no one REALLY thought about those new "the web as an Operating System" or Web 2.0. In the meantime, applications became web apps. And there was a new way to change code, and make the result available, for free or pay, without giving out the sources.
Is there a difference between compiling software and making it available to run on Unix, Windows, or Mac, or installing it on a web server and giving someone access? Fundamentally, yes, there is. Local and remote are two different universes; however, look at the results:
Both give you access to code functionality without access to the - Open Source - code that makes it all happen. We here at Socialtext sat down and had a long and hard talk. Would this go over well? Would this put an undue strain on development and our community? And, what, if any, was the spirit of Open Source we wanted to preserve?
The result is the above paragraph. It requires, just like any other Open Source, those who make changes to the code and redistribute it, to make those changes, and the code as a whole, available to others. So that the community can benefit from itself and Socialtext, as much as Socialtext has in the past benefited and will continue to, benefit from the community. We just thought "distribution" should be more than just a CD. Putting a public site up is as much "distribution" to us, as giving someone a copy of a compiled vim, is. And that's what it's all about, no?
