Re: The APSL and Export Controls
According to Raul Miller:
> [Chip, you subscribed to debian-legal? Or do you only get copies if
> they're explicitly mailed to you?]
I'm subscribed. I'm in the queue to be a Debian developer, too.
> According to Jonathan P Tomer:
> > > it is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute
> > > modified code to perform a service for a particular entity, apple.
> Chip Salzenberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > So does the BSD advertising clause.
> I'm not sure about the OSD guidelines, but Debian treats the BSD
> advertising clause as an explicit exception to the principles underlying
> our guidelines. It's not a precedent for anything we want to do: it's
> something we'd like to get rid of.
Well, I don't particularly like Apple's reporting requirements either.
But I can't rightly say that it isn't Open Source just because I don't
like it. OSI set the rules of the game; we have to play fair.
Besides, the QOI (quality of implementation) factor comes in here:
If the APSL's requirements are too much, developers just won't
participate, and there won't be a significant body of code under the
APSL that we have to worry about. Developer-irritant issues are
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <email@example.com>
"When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."