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

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

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 13:39:19 +0200 Tobias Frost wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:14:15PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > 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.
> That is not the point. Excess distribution is the problem. I have to offer the
> code to people I have not interacted with.
> (And the license does not say anything about friends, just about RD departements)


Dear John, as has already been told you by Tobias and Mihai, the key
difference between the GNU GPL v2 and the APSL v1.2 (here) is that
the GPL only requires to make source code available to recipients of
object code, while the APSL requires to make source code *publicly*
available, if you just send modified object code of one friend (which
is a third party) or even if you just use modified object code
internally within your business or organization (for anything that is
not R&D or personal use).

Moreover, the APSL always requires you to continue making source code
*publicly* available for at least 12 months, while the written offer is
only *one* of the options to comply with the GPL: the other option is
offering source code along with object code and never having to worry
again about the thing.

> > 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.
> As said, IMHO, distributing to the friend of a dissident is considered as Deployment.

I agree with Tobias here.
Quoting the [APSL v1.2]:

| 1.4  "Deploy" means
| as well as
| distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form
| or manner.

[APSL v1.2]: <https://opensource.apple.com/source/hfs/hfs-522.0.9/APPLE_LICENSE>

> But maybe Apple is willing to relicnese it to Apache 2.0, then it would be
> worth a try. (ASFAIK they did so with some projets having this license)

This would be a good outcome.
I really hope Apple may be persuaded to re-license hfsprogs under the
terms of the [Apache License v2.0].

[Apache License v2.0]: <https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt>

 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpeBas35IPm8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: