Re: APSL 2.0
bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org> writes:
>> 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.
>
> So a hypothetical Amazon 1990, which receives a request over e-mail
> and responds by sending a package via physical mail, is not an
> electronic service? Neither is Gutenberg-USPS, which will e-mail me a
> document in response to a physical request, no SASE required?
Given that I think the license is vague & needs clarification, I'll
assume you're asking what I think should be the case, not what the
license says. Because, as I said, the license is ambiguous. As I see
it we can either trust Apple[1], try to get clarification, or give
up on the license.
So no, neither of those should qualify as external deployment.
[1] As I said before, this may not be as unreasonable as it sounds
since Apple will possibly be on the receiving end of the license as
well.
>> 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."
>
> This confuses me. How can you not say, when Joe's using the covered
> code to perform typesetting for others, that he's not using it in any
> way to provide a service?
As I see it, yes, there is a difference. In one case it's automatic,
and the typesetting code is itself providing a service -- i.e., it's
directly being used by the customer. In the other Joe is interacting
with the typesetting code, not the customer, so Joe is providing the
service.
>> 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.
>
> Copyright law does not grant any control over a third party's use, but
> only on modification and distribution. The GNU GPL's
> source-redistribution requirement only kicks in when attempting to do
> something normally forbidden by copyright law. That is, it lifts the
> barrier of copyright law, but only part way.
The APSL refers several times to performance, which suggests that they
intend a public-performance argument to use that to back up this
requirement.
> The above paragraph mostly says that the APSL is a bad idea and may be
> unenforceable; if you don't buy that, at least consider the original
> argument: that a restriction in addition to those imposed by copyright
> law is necessarily non-free.
Why?
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: