Re: APSL 2.0

[Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>]

> Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
> > Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
> > DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
> > viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
> It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the Affero GPL
> requirement for remote services to offer users the code.

Indeed, and this is the primary reason I recommend authors NOT add the "or 
any later version" when choosing GPLv2.  

> Do you object to that?  If so, why?

Vehemently.  It removes the ability of users to privately modify work,
which IMO is simply not free.  Almost any piece of software in a business 
is used (indirectly in many cases, but used nonetheless) by most of it's 
customers.  

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.

> I think you are unwise to throw words like "leeches" and "viral" around
> so freely.  That sort of thing spoiled an otherwise interesting email
> for me.

Is there any possible reason to prefer this requirement other than to 
punish "leeches"?  This seems a hugely bad motivation for a major license 
change.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>