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

Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes

Scripsit Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
> Mark Rafn writes:

>  > It might be advantageous to examine some software that is OSD-free
>  > but not Debian-free, or vice versa,

> Does anybody know of any such software?

If I remember correctly, there used to be a case with the Apple Public
Source License, which the OSI certified as Open Source <tm>, whereas
Debian didn't deem it DFSG-free.

Yup, here it is. The APSL copy currently on opensource.org contains:

| 2.2 You may use, reproduce, display, perform, modify and Deploy
|   Covered Code, provided that in each instance: 
| (c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications
|     publicly available under the terms of this License, including
|     the license grants set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as
|     you Deploy the Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date
|     of initial Deployment, whichever is longer. You should
|     preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed
|     Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site);

This denies a user the right to make modifications and distribute the
modified software (with source code) to his neighbour *without* also
distributing it to the public at large.

The consensus on debian-legal that this right is a sine qua non for
DFSG-freedom is strong and well established.

It also says

| 12. Termination.

| 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will
|      terminate: 
| (c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time
|     during the term of this License, commence an action for patent
|     infringement against Apple.

which I take to mean that one who accepts the license must effectively
give Apple a royalty-free license to use each an every patent he
controls. This would be fair with us if it was restricted to patens
related to the "Covered Code", (and with some disagreement perhaps
even if restricted to software patents) but no such restriction is in
the language quoted. It even covers plain old
honest-to-your-favorite-deity patents on mechanical or chemical


| 12.2 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, You agree to
|    immediately stop any further use, reproduction, modification,
|    sublicensing and distribution of the Covered Code and to destroy
|    all copies of the Covered Code that are in your possession or
|    control.

which mentions stopping *use*. We object to the notion that one needs
to to comply with specific terms simply to use the software (as
opposed to modifying or distributing it).

I seem to remember that there were also originally a
you-must-follow-US-export-laws clause in the license originally
certified by OSI, but that must have been removed since.

[std.disclaimer: The above reflects my recollection of the case and my
interpretation of the DFSG and the cited clauses. There are probably
those on the list who disagree with me on specific points, and it's
even conceivable that there's an actual consensus against my arguments
that I've somehow overlooked or forgotten about].

Henning Makholm                              "En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i
                                         spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ..."

Reply to: