Re: APSL 2.0
Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:
>> Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:
>> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html
>> > is a list of software "uses" that are hard to distinguish from each
>> > other in a license, so would all require full source to be made publicly
>> > available.
>
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> What are you trying to say here?
>>
>> * That providing a service in this context necessarily includes the
>> mail-order typesetting scenario?
>
> Of course it does. Why would delivery via paper confer fewer rights on
> the user than delivery by email or HTTP?
Well, the APSL specifically says that the service must be "through
electronic communication" to qualify:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt
Though that was as much my mistake as yours, for choosing my example
carelessly. How about a web server, instead? Do you think that
using a web server to make your content available to others qualifies
as providing a service? Do you think Apple thinks so?
In the list you referenced, the service goes electronic when Joe
receives the document via email, munges it, and sends it back. Even
there, I think it's hard to claim that Joe is using the "Covered Code,
alone or as part of a Larger Work, in any way to provide a service."
It's only when Joe sets up a procmail recipe that automatically
munges, and then sends back the results, that the APSL is triggered.
IMHO, at any rate.
> Also true, but I think it's more about the fundamental problem that this
> is a non-free restriction than about abuse by licensors.
I'm not convinced we can clearly get non-free out of the DFSG on this
one. I don't buy the discrimination against fields of endeavor, and
unlike the affero GPL this isn't a restriction on modification.
It's a restriction, yes. And not one I particularly like, if the
truth be known. But the analogy between this restriction and the
source-redistribution restriction of the GPL is simply too strong for
me to ignore it. If you assume that the definition of "Externally
Deploy" (or more specifically, "provide a service") is going to be
reasonable I have trouble seeing where you can say it's not DFSG free.
I'm ready to say that the license is a bit ambiguous and needs
clarification, but I'm not convinced that what Apple is trying to do
is non-free.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: