Re: APSL 2.0

[Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net>]

> Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:
> > 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.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> What are you trying to say here?
> 
> * That providing a service in this context necessarily includes the
>   mail-order typesetting scenario?

Of course it does.  Why would delivery via paper confer fewer rights on 
the user than delivery by email or HTTP?

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

Certainly true.

> * 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"?

Also true, but I think it's more about the fundamental problem that this 
is a non-free restriction than about abuse by licensors.

> If it's the first, I think you're being silly.

Perhaps, but I'm not laughing.  I honestly don't see why you'd expect, for 
example, someone who gets a statement electronically to have more access 
to a billing system than someone who gets it via snail-mail.

> If it's the second,
> I'm sceptical, but willing to listen to more argument.

I believe myself to be reasonable, and I don't see any fundamental
difference between delivering printeed page of output and viewing a
webpage of output.  Both are use of software, and neither should require 
distribution of the software so used.
--
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>