Re: Classification of the APSL as non-DFSG-compliant
On 4/20/20 12:32 PM, Tobias Frost wrote:
>> 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" .
I don't see any difference from a distribution point of view. Apple's APSL
is even less restrictive than the GPL-2 here as it does not require you
to share your modifications among your friends or for R&D. The GPL-2
requires that, the APSL not.
Furthermore, the question that is relevant for the dissident test - that
was used as argument for calling the license non-free - is whether sharing
your modifications with your friends would require you to make these
modifications public. And that is clearly not the case.
And, devdisk_cmds (which is what hfsprogs is derived from) is part of the
Fedora main distribution . So RedHat's lawyers seem to agree that the
license can be considered free. It's not distributed in openSUSE for the
moment, but as a SUSE employee, I should be able to ask our lawyers.
In any case, I will be contacting Apple now and I will ask for their assessment
as I don't think we're getting further in this discussion if the goal posts
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hfsplus-tools/
.''`. 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