Re: APSL 2.0
> > 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?
> Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:
> > Of course it does. Why would delivery via paper confer fewer rights on
> > the user than delivery by email or HTTP?
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Well, the APSL specifically says that the service must be "through
> electronic communication" to qualify:
Ok, though this is an arbitrary distinction, and I'd argue that something
that restricts e-mail communication is no more free than something that
restricts snail-mail communication.
Anyway, rephrase my question to "why would delivery over e-mail confer
fewer rights to a user than delivery over http or RMI (or RMI over HTTP)?"
> 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?
Very much so.
> Do you think Apple thinks so?
I'd be shocked if they didn't, though I can't speak for them.
> In the list you referenced, the service goes electronic when Joe
> receives the document via email, munges it, and sends it back.
How about if he delivers it by hand, and recieves it via e-mail?
> 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."
Really? I think it's hard to claim otherwise.
> 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.
Interesting opinion, but it seems to me it's one based on what you'd like
to happen, rather than what the license actually says.
> > 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 on use (per definition 1.4 section b). DFSG has no
explicit item that use of the software must not be restricted, but any use
restriction completely breaks users' trust of the freeness of Debian.
> 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.
Completely different. GPL is about distribution, and specifically says
that no use of the software is restricted. APSL limits use.
> 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 haven't thought of any definition of "externally deploy" that is
reasonable. I suspect none exists.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: