Re: APSL 2.0

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>

> Depending on exactly what it is, probably. For example, if I were to 
> use a (hypothetical) GPLv3-covered firewall, would I have to offer my 
> firewall code --- rules and all, gotta have complete source --- for 
> download, just because it routed the packets?

Before we get too paranoid here: As far as I remember, the last time
we had this discussion David Turner told us that the FSF is aware of
the possibility of such ridiculous consequences and is (or was, that
that time) trying to work out a definition that was not too broad.
An ASP clause would only be in GPLv3 if a sufficiently narrow
definition could be constructed.

Of course this does not solve all of *our* problems - it is entirely
possible that the FSF comes up with a definition that *they* think is
narrow enough, yet *we* on debian-legal think gives rise to non-free
restrictions.

But if we end up in that sad situation, the battle will probably not
be fought around examples that are so clear-cut as the one you
hypothesize.

-- 
Henning Makholm                                   "No one seems to know what
                                       distinguishes a bell from a whistle."