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

Re: Classification of the APSL as non-DFSG-compliant

On 4/20/20 12:15 PM, Tobias Frost wrote:
>> 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).

How is that different from the GPL-2 which mandates three years of distribution
for non-personal distribution. I have the impression that you are applying
double-standards here.

Any commercial product using GPL-2 must share the source code publicly, the
same applies to the APSL-1.2. There is no difference.


 .''`.  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: