Re: APSL 2.0
> Mark Rafn <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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?
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> 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?
Partly because I'm curious where you draw the line, and partly to show at
least one of the the problems with such a requirement. It only kicks in
when the system is used for what computers are good at - automating
> >> > 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.
This is interesting, and AFAIK the first license Debian has
considered which makes such a claim (that allowing someone to send input
to and recieve output from a program is public performance).
> 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.
I read it in reverse. One of the main reasons for a click-through is to
limit use (as opposed to copying), and since this can never be free,
there's no reason to have a click-through on free software.
> 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.
It'll be fun to see if it ever gets tested. I don't know of any other
software license that attempts to put such a limit without explicitly
claiming that use itself is covered by the license (usually by a
click-through or shrink-wrap license, but sometimes just by including a
license with the software).
I'll be semi-unavailable for a week or so, further replies (from me; I
hope others will continue to participate as new points come up) will be
Mark Rafn email@example.com <http://www.dagon.net/>