Re: Classification of the APSL as non-DFSG-compliant
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 12:22:52PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> 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.
No. the GPL requires you only to give the sources to the recipient of the work,
not to everyone which is the defintiopn of "publicily" .
> .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' : Debian Developer - email@example.com
> `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - firstname.lastname@example.org
> `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913