Re: Classification of the APSL as non-DFSG-compliant
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:13:48AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 4/20/20 11:04 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> > * On 4/20/20 10:48 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> >>> For sure it fails the Dissident Test.
> >> Does it? The part which requires the availability of the source changes explicitly
> >> talks about deployment of the software, i.e. distribution, not personal use which
> >> would be the criteria for the dissident test.
> >>
> >> If I'm using the software for myself and modify it, I'm free to keep the modifications
> >> to myself unless I distribute the software, so I don't think the clause would fail
> >> the test.
> >
> > Yes, but the Dissident Test explicitly includes distribution to friends.
>
> I don't think that sharing your software with friends qualifies to the term
> "Software Deployment" that Apple is talking about here. Personal Use is
> explicitly excluded from the deployment term, even when the source is distributed.
>
> In 1.4, the license states:
>
> > 1.4 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than
> > for Your internal research and development (R&D) and/or Personal Use,
> > and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution
> > of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use
> > and/or Personal Use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or
> > distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.
>
> It's pretty obvious from this clause that the requirement to provide the sources
> of your modifications for at least 12 months applies to commercial distribution
> only.
Distributing to friends may cross the line of personal use. And !"personal use" != "commercial use".
(I define "personal use" as individual use; not use of a group.)
Also, there may be an Dissident Inc; also that needs the Dissident Test to pass.
The last sentence reads to me that distributiong to 3rd parties is Deployment.
Your dissident friend is a "third party".
However, if it is the intention of that paragraph that commercial use is to be
treated differently, this alone would alone is a reason to call a license
non-free (DFSG §6).
> Adrian
>
> --
> .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
> `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
> `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
>
Reply to: