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

Re: APSL 2.0

On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 02:19, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam Warner <lists@consulting.net.nz> wrote:
> > I am not prepared to answer these questions at this time. If I had to
> > make a snap decision it would be for the status quo that licensing
> > obligations apply upon source code distribution.
> I'm puzzled by this phrasing.  Don't you mean binary (or any)
> distribution?  At that point, many licences put obligations upon you.

Thanks for picking this up. My brain wasn't engaged when I wrote that
(and it's even less engaged at this time of the morning). I meant the
standard types of distribution (binary and source) as distinct from
deployment. For example the GPL imposes no obligation in the absence of
distribution of a derivate work.

> > The issue at hand is the superset that the Free Software Foundation has
> > now declared to be a Free Software licence:
> Can you demonstrate where this contradicts their Free Software Definition?
> This does not appear to be news, so I am surprised that you feel a need
> to highlight it on this list.

It's news. Earlier versions of the APSL were declared non-free because
"The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for
your own private purposes, without publishing your changes.":

You may have also missed the paragraph in the Free Software Definition
which states: "You should also have the freedom to make modifications
and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning
that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be
required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way."

Distributing nothing while simply providing an electronic communications
service may not be related to publishing changes.

As I said to Lynn, feel free to consider what "private" meant and now
means. Feel free to consider whether the Free Software Foundation made
plain years ago that a free software licence could enforce disclosure of
source code if the software as some part of a larger work performed in
any way an electronic communication service with another client.

It's clear to me that a convenient redefinition has occurred. I'm not
debating it with you.

> > This appears to be a very broad ("in any way") test for a requirement to
> > provide source code when electronically communicating with a client ("in
> > any way to provide a service, including but not limited to delivery of
> > content").
> I agree that the wording of this part seems a little broad.  It is more
> a question of whether we can take it at face value.  The Google problem
> is well-known, I thought?  There are all these millions of users who are
> not able to adapt the software they use...

Yes, and it's OK. I'd rather have that than a leech mentality that
promotes entitlement to source code simply because one accesses an
electronic communications service.

> [...]
> > believe there is stigma attached to packaging software classified as
> > non-free and in many cases it is just as accessible to Debian users.]
> I disagree with you.  I think packaging for non-free does little to help
> us achieve our aims.  I would love to see non-free go away, but that's
> a different discussion.

That you had to snip the Debian Social Contract in order to disagree
with me is telling.

And by the way that's "I don't believe..."

I'm content to disagree with you. I'll reconsider after Debian's Social
Contract is rewritten.


Reply to: