Re: APSL 2.0
bts@alum.mit.edu (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> That's an interesting idea, but it is not what is written there: the
> APSL talks about using the software in any way to provide a service.
> So when considering the question "Is Joe using the software in any
> way to provide a service?", is "No" an answer you find reasonable?
> Can you truly state "Joe is not using the software in any way to
> provide a service"?
All I'm trying to say is that there is a reasonable interpretation of
the license. What's more, I suspect that the stuff Apple cares about
falls under the reasonable interpretation. After all, if I understand
your objections, they'd be satisfied if Apple agreed that "providing a
service" doesn't apply to situations where a person is using the
software to manually provide a service (e.g., your email-based
typesetting service). Is that correct?
Am I trying to say that the license, as written, is clear & ok?
Absolutely not. But I do think that, given the basic structure of the
license and a bit of work ironing out details, it could be made DFSG
free. Personally, in addition to the above I'd like to see an
exemption for works that implement well-known services, but that would
be tricky and I don't think it's necessary for the DFSG.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: