Re: APSL 2.0

[Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>]

MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz> wrote:

>> Here's a mere consequence: If Debian is persuaded that the APSL 2.0 is
>> DFSG-free then a subsequent revision of the GPL with the addition of a
>> viral electronic service clause would also be DFSG-free.
>
> It is expected that GPL-3 will contain something similar to the
> Affero GPL requirement for remote services to offer users the code.
> Do you object to that?  If so, why?

For what it's worth, I think the Affero bit has problems that the APSL
2.0 does not -- namely that the Affero bit places a restriction on the
code itself that if quine-like functionality exists it must be
preserved.  From that perspective, the APSL 2.0 is an improvement.  On
the other hand, the APSL doesn't seem to address the very problem the
quine-bit solves: that the copyright holder gets to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether it goes in.  I'm not sure that that really
makes much difference though, since the copyright holder also gets to
choose the license.

I personally think that this move (APSL 2.0 & Affero both) is a stupid
one.  I think it will cause greater problems using old code in new
projects (due to license incompatibility and uncertainty) and in the
end probably wont be necessary.  But I'd like to allow events to
decide themselves.  So I'm willing, in principle, to consider
something like this free, though I don't know if other folks here
agree with me on this.

But I am curious what Apple thinks would happen if you used APSL 2.0
covered code in a web server (let's assume it's just a basic web
server).  Would that qualify as offering a service?  "Externally
Deploy" is defined in terms of distribution or something that will "in
any way provide a service".  Is the phrase "provide a service" clear
and well defined enough that it would include web apps (e.g., Google,
which I do think they mean to include) but not web servers or inetd?
That's how I interpret it, though there are some fuzzy cases (e.g., a
mail-order typesetting business) which I'm happy leaving fuzzy.

If Apple intends to incorporate patches under this license, one hopes
that they wont want the definition of "provide a service" to be too
extensive either.  I.e., if the definition of "provide a service"
evolves it will hopefully be a reasonable evolution.  So I guess in
the end I'm cautiously positive, though I'm curious what others think.
I know some folks here were very much against the Affero GPL, and I
don't know if this answers their problems with it.

Note: I haven't looked over the rest of the APSL either.  Also, IANAL,
IANADD.  ;)

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03