[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: is this free?



On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 11:32:31PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> AJ:
> > And in any case, whichever of obliation 2a and 2b you choose to fulfill,
> > it requires notifying AT&T
> This is also in the APSL and IBM licenses.

Then I don't see why you'd consider the APSL free. I'll note that it's not
listed in the list of OSI certified licenses at www.opensource.org.

Hmmm. I'll also note that the discussion re the APSL 1.1 in April
(http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-9904/threads.html)
essentially says `No, this isn't free' because of the termination clause,
which is still present. The only later discussion was, essentially ``Is
the APSL 1.1 free?'' -- Johnie Ingram, ``I think it's DFSG-free.'' --
Bruce. So forgive me if I go with the earlier opinion that was actually
backed up with arguments, and ignore this as a `precedent'.

The only difference between 

       (c) if You Deploy Covered Code containing Modifications made by
       You, inform others of how to obtain those Modifications by filling
       out and submitting the information found at
       http://www.apple.com/publicsource/modifications.html, if
       available
			(from APSL 1.1)

and

       (c) must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your
       Deployed Modifications by filling out and submitting the
       required information found at
       http://www.apple.com/publicsource/modifications.html
			(from APSL 1.0)

seems to be that the postcardware clause now only effects modification,
not use.

Oddly, I can't find anything requiring similar notification in the
Postfix/Jikes license.

> > The sixth point in GENERAL seems like it would discriminate against everyone
> > not living in New York, USA, personally.
> Also in just about every license ever written anywhere. QPL, MPL, NPL, IBM,
> APSL.

Well, every American license anyway. You'll note that this is a
name-brand-ism too, Qt do it, Netscape do it, IBM do it, Apple do it,
AT&T do it. Microsoft do it too. It's not a free-software-ism at all.

> Regarding the "monitor the web site" thing, I can't think of another good
> way for them to notify you if there's a claim, unless they demand you name
> and address.

``AT&T warrant that they will make any and all notifications regarding
the software available at such-n-such a url, licensees will be considered
notified after such a notice has been added to such-n-such url.''

They just have to send me a mail with the relevant notice, they don't
have to righteously insist I read every piece of mail I get.

*sigh* I don't see why OSI or SPI or whoever can't work together with
some of the swathes of lawyers from all these name-brand companies and
work out whatever CYA and patent problems there are with the BSD license
or the GPL and just be done with it.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgpQAImARVjOR.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: