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

Re: APSL 2.0

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:

> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Email isn't entirely electronic unless it's also automatic.  If you
> type in the message and send it, there's a decidedly non-electronic
> (well, non-digital) element: you.

Ok, so as long as someone presses a button as part of the process, this 
requirement doesn't kick in?   Does this mean moderated lists are 
exempt and unmoderated ones would have to provide source and configuration 
to all users?

> > It's a restriction on use (per definition 1.4 section b).  DFSG has
> > no explicit item that use of the software must not be restricted,
> > but any use restriction completely breaks users' trust of the
> > freeness of Debian.

> This seems like a very difficult argument to know when to make. 

I think it's one that should be made when use restrictions, which normally 
fall outside of copyright law, are part of a license under consideration.

> Do you apply it to any new license, suggesting that any license not
> already in Debian will break users' trust of Debian's freeness?

I apply it to old licenses as well.  If Debian includes software with 
restricted use, I believe it is a bug.

> > Completely different.  GPL is about distribution, and specifically says 
> > that no use of the software is restricted.  APSL limits use.

> So?  This is a serious question: why does that matter?

Hmm.  I'll need to put more thought into how to explain this - it's the
first time I've seen it challenged.  Off the cuff: freedom to use a piece
of software is more fundamental than the freedom to modify or distribute
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

Reply to: