[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 12:32 PM, Tobias Frost wrote:
>>> 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.

Or something like an NGO, which strictly is also a business (even if not for

>>> 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).

No discrimination against fields of endeavor and commercial use. Yep.

>> 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" [1].

Additionally, the "three-year clause" in the GPL v2 is an option (which can
easily be circumvented by choosing a different option, e.g., to always
distribute binaries and source at the same time) for a written *offer* to
distribute sources upon request by the binary recipient.

The key difference here is "public" vs. "recipient". For instance, in the Desert
Island Test, an entity that is unable to communicate with the island can neither
receive binaries nor request source distribution, which is fine.


Reply to: