Re: APSL 2.0

[Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>]

Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, MJ Ray wrote:

>> Do you object to that?  If so, why?
>
> Vehemently.  It removes the ability of users to privately modify work,
> which IMO is simply not free.  Almost any piece of software in a business 
> is used (indirectly in many cases, but used nonetheless) by most of it's 
> customers.  
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html 
> is a list of software "uses" that are hard to distinguish from each 
> other in a license, so would all require full source to be made publicly 
> available.

What are you trying to say here?

* That providing a service in this context necessarily includes the
  mail-order typesetting scenario?

* That what "providing a service" means here isn't really nailed down,
  and reasonable people might include the mail-order typesetting
  scenario?

* That even though reasonable people would disagree, we can't trust
  Apple (or other licensors) not to include the mail-order typesetting
  scenario in "providing a service"?

If it's the first, I think you're being silly.  If it's the second,
I'm sceptical, but willing to listen to more argument.  If it's the
third, I'm worried about this myself, but cautiously willing to give
folks the benefit of the doubt.

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