Re: APSL 2.0

[Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org>]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 01:16:21AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote:
> The issue at hand is the superset that the Free Software Foundation has
> now declared to be a Free Software licence:
> 
> "(b) to use Covered Code, alone or as part of a Larger Work, in any way
> to provide a service, including but not limited to delivery of content,
> through electronic communication with a client other than You."
> 
> As I noted in my previous message, client appears to be a different
> individual or legal entity, not a different computer program.

Taken to an extreme, this paragraph could be interpreted to mean that, if I
use APSL'd source code to track client contacts internally to my business,
then e-mail a client, the code for my contact tracking could be requested by
the client.  Whether that's a particularly reasonable interpretation or not
would be up to the legal beagles.  I don't think it would really pass
muster, since the link is so tenuous, but you never know.

And then you can argue how much of the communication needs to be electronic? 
Does a phone count, since it uses electrons?  If I write a letter on my
computer, print it, and then mail it, is that still electronic
communication?  If you argue no, because it involves a human element, note
that I used my fingers to type the e-mail, and someone had to click their
mouse to retrieve the content, so that's a human element too...

Boy licence debating is fun!

> content"). As I wrote, "If the Google's of this world used code under
> such a licence they would have to make their source code available to me
> after I performed a search query and was delivered some content." This
> appears to be a reasonable application of the paragraph even though it
> would have extraordinary consequences.

Would you be able to detail these extraordinary (I presume you mean
negative) consequences?

In my view, that Google example you give is exactly the sort of thing that
the APSL is aiming for - if you provide a service using the APSL'd code, you
have to provide that APSL'd code to any user of that service who requests
it.

As regards DFSG-freeness, I don't think there's anything in the guidelines
which is explicitly opposed to this.  It touches a fair few edges, and I can
certainly understand how it could push some people's buttons, but my vote
would be close, but not quite non-free.  Other clauses in the licence may
be nasty, though - I haven't read the whole licence.

- Matt