Re: APSL 2.0
Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> writes:
> 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?
I dunno. Possibly. Frankly, this case doesn't interest me much; I
can see it going either way and both are fairly reasonable. Why does
it matter?
>> > 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.
In the case of the DPSL that's not obvious, since they seem to want to
include restrictions on performance. My interpretation of that is
that they think that the "provide a service" variety of "external
deployment" would qualify as a performance -- or so they would argue,
at any rate.
Certainly at one point the argument against use restrictions was made,
but it was because in order to enforce it you'd need something like a
clickwrap rather than simply a license. For reasons that have been
discussed before, the clickwrap would inevitably make the license
non-free.
But the APSL doesn't do that, that I saw on my quick read-through. So
my understanding (IANAL, of course) is that unless the type of use
they seek to control is prohibited by copyright law (i.e., as public
performance) it has no force anyway.
So if you're right, and this kind of use it outside of copyright law,
it has no force. Otherwise, it is under copyright law. Of course, I
have no idea how this would work outside the US.
>> > 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 it.
The one argument against it that I know of (described above) doesn't
apply in this case. Also note that, as I said before, the kind of use
isn't restricted, only that if you use it under certain circumstances
you must also do something else (distribute source).
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: