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.
Adrian
--
.''`. 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: