Hello Paul, On 8/4/22 02:32, Paul Wise wrote:
The wiki describes it as being non-free and cites two threads: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Apple_Public_Source_License_.28APSL.29 https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20010928105424Z.boo@physics.utah.edu https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20040626225314.5da7f9da.frx@firenze.linux.it There are recent challenges to it being non-free in these threads: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/d2119303-b470-9ebe-138e-1b57deb8ca97@physik.fu-berlin.de https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/eff03d85-7990-af04-caac-57b076cc99f4@physik.fu-berlin.de
Thanks for these links. My choices for precedent are a conversations from almost a decade ago or a modern challenge that talks about an earlier version of that license. The APSL 1.* is very different to the APSL 2.0, and many of the previous issues with 1.* are solved in 2.0 according to the FSF. Some have argued it's less strict than even the GPL-2. I've seen a lot of those earlier conversations, but I just wanted a modern review of the license to see if version 2.0 specifically of the license is seen as DFSG-compliant in 2022, not based on 2000s precedent.
There are copies of the license in Debian main: https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=APPLE+PUBLIC+SOURCE+LICENSE&literal=1
Interesting, the APSL 2.0 is seen in some relatively important packages like Chromium and QtWebEngine.
Thanks for the info! -- Ben Westover
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature