bzt {l Wrote}:And what other options are there? Convey the work in source form in the first place?
That's one option.
bzt {l Wrote}:Either way, you are either obligated to provide the source or you do provide the source...
If you no longer "convey a covered work in object code form" then you are no longer obligated to provide the source.
Of course this would be up to the courts to decide. I don't think you can just remove it from one day to the next without any warning. But if they have been given plenty of time to download, and they chose not to do it, then I don't think they can come several years later and demand that you give them the source code.
bzt {l Wrote}:Now you're just obviously trolling, your comment made it clear that you're aware you make no sense here.
Things have become more clear as the discussion has carried on and after refreshing my memory by reading the license texts so I'm more confident about my answers now.
Note that I updated my previous post to make it more clear. Not sure if you saw it...
Peter {l Wrote}:The original author would obviously need to release the source code (not because it's required by the license but because it wouldn't be "open source" otherwise) but people who redistribute the software (modified or unmodified) don't need to release the source code (meaning derivative works are not necessarily "open source").
bzt {l Wrote}:All of the licenses you listed demands that your work and its derivatives as well must be modifiable to be Free and Open Source, which implies the source must be available:
Not sure how you can come to that conclusion. The licenses I listed don't even mention "free" or "open source".
The word "free" is present in some places but it doesn't have the same meaning as in the term "free software".
bzt {l Wrote}:MIT "to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify" (you can't modify without a source),
Yes, those are the rights that are given to me. I don't need to give the same rights to others that I distrubute the software to.
It's not correct that I cannot modify the software without the source code. I could use a hex editor, a decompiler, etc. This is even more true when the license is applied to something other than code. If it's applied to a PDF the "source code" (using GPLv3's definition of
source code: "
the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it") would probably be the .odt or LaTeX file from which it was generated. If all I had was the PDF file it wouldn't stop me from making modifications even though it wouldn't be the preferred format.
bzt {l Wrote}:zlib "Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such" (pretty clear that altered source has to be public for that),
All this line really says is that you should mark "source versions" that have been modified.
It doesn't mean you are not allowed to distribute versions that are not "altered source versions".
bzt {l Wrote}:BSDs "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright" (directly naming "source code"),
The license clearly gives you permission to distribute the software without source code: "
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted"
The fact that you must keep the copyright notices does not change that.
bzt {l Wrote}:Apache "“Source” form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code" (also directly naming "source code").
There is no requirement that you distribute the software in the "preferred form".
bzt {l Wrote}:If you don't provide the source to the general public, that's called "closed source", and not "open source", end of discussion.
I agree 100%. The license is only part of what makes it open/free. It's a tool that open source software can use.
Just marking your code with an "open source license" without actually giving it to anyone would not automatically make it "open source" from anyone's perspective.
bzt {l Wrote}:Copyleft licenses such as GPL don't allow you to use open source in proprietary software, while others allow it, but as soon as you do include your software in a proprietary closed source application, you can't say "licensed under a FOSS license" any more, because it becomes proprietary, naturally.
If this is so obvious then I don't see what we have really been arguing about here above.
The license would still apply inside the proprietary software. It might require it to show certain notices for example. The program as a whole would obvious not be FOSS.
bzt {l Wrote}:Then I repeat my answer: it is the license that controls how third-party distribution might happen, and your question has absolutely nothing to do with the license, hence your question has nothing to do with third-party distribution.
I want to allow free third-party distribution without people having to worry too much about legal questions. Using a free open-source license that people are familiar with is a good way of doing that.
I don't think the law cares whether I use a license or not. I still need to comply with the GDPR, and the people who redistribute my game need to comply with the GDPR.
I don't want people to have to worry about GDPR issues because then they might say "better safe than sorry" and stop distributing my game. I don't want that to happen, not for that reason.
------------------------------------------
Peter {l Wrote}:bzt {l Wrote}:If you don't provide the source to the general public, that's called "closed source", and not "open source", end of discussion.
I agree 100%. The license is only part of what makes it open/free. It's a tool that open source software can use.
Actually, I only agree to 95%.
The source code doesn't need to be made available to the "general public". It's enough that it's available to the people who receives the software. Then they can make it available to everyone if they want.
I think the terms "open source" and "free software" are often used synonymously so I'm going to quote both from the
Open Source Definition published by the
Open Source Initiative and from the
Free Software Definition published by the
Free Software Foundation.
The Open Source Definition {l Wrote}:The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
The Open Source Definition {l Wrote}:Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost
The first quote makes it pretty clear that the rights only need to apply to the persons who receive the program. The second quote implies that it's alright to only distribute the source code together with the program and since the program is not necessarily available to everyone that means not everyone need to have access to the source code.
Free Software Definition {l Wrote}:A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms
...
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this
....
It says that it's the program's users that should have these freedoms. If you are not a user then you don't necessarily need to have access to the source code even though it's free software.
Of course, in this day and age, if someone finds the program useful the chances are very big that it will be made available to the general public very soon.