According to Jules Bean:
You warrant that you will provide, by some convenient means, your
modifications to the code upon request from Apple or their duly appointed
representative, and allow them to be distributed under this license
Apple's mostly concerned with big universities and other
Jules Bean writes:
You warrant that you will provide, by some convenient means, your
modifications to the code upon request from Apple or their duly appointed
representative, and allow them to be distributed under this license
So I have to save my modifications forever just in case Apple wants
According to John Hasler:
Chip Salzenberg:
Apple's mostly concerned with big universities and other large
organizations,...
They think that IBM or The University of Michigan are going to distribute
modified APSL code and they will be unable to get a copy?
Unable? No. But they want to
Chip Salzenberg writes:
Unable? No. But they want to be sure that it happens reliably.
A simple request will get it to happen at least as reliably as a
requirement. These people are control freaks.
Now that's just twisting my words. Universities and IBM are free
software developers too.
On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 06:48:28PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Jules Bean:
Forcing a report at every stage of the way is too much of an
impediment, IMO.
The APSL is satisfied if you just automatically make diffs with a cron
job, and put them at the same URL every night.
I
Quoting Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
According to John Hasler:
I also find it a bit worrisome that you could misjudge such an
obviously non-free license.
== PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS ==
== I don't speak for OSI on this, not yet anyway ==
We assumed that the export clause was a
Chip Salzenberg writes:
According to Seth David Schoen:
If the current OSD is all they see, there's a lot of room for
confusion, perhaps because of the number of things the DFSG took for
granted.
OSI has never made an explicit or implicit contract to call something
Open Source just
According to Seth David Schoen:
Therefore, you might want to emphasize on opensource.org that the use of
the mark is permitted _when the OSI judges_ that a license is Open
Source -- not just when a developer believes that the terms of the OSD
have been met.
Good idea. I'll pass it along to
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
I wrote:
I also find it a bit worrisome that you could misjudge such an
obviously non-free license.
Chip Salzenberg writes:
Besides, hindsight is 20/20 -- if the export clause is so 'obviously' an
OSD violation, why is it only now a
Chip Salzenberg writes:
But the export clause is the only OSD violation in the license, AFAIK.
(c) must notify Apple and other third parties of how to obtain Your
Deployed Modifications by filling out and submitting the required
information found at
Also, the trailer:
In any event, you must be of majority age and otherwise competent to enter
into contracts to accept this license.
fails DFSG point (5). There's no point telling me why apple added this
clause - I do understand why. Nonetheless, IMO, it fails point (5).
ditto for the
First of all, this probably belongs on spi-general if you wanted more than
a bit of rag chewing (ie. gossip).
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 09:48:36PM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
hrm... i was under the impression that the holders of the certification mark
for 'open source' were spi, not osi. am i
John Hasler wrote:
or (b) to anyone on the U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially
Designated Nationals or the U.S. Department of Commerce's Table of
Denial Orders.
And I also cannot give copies to people whose names are on a list
maintained by some jerk in Washington.
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Jules Bean:
2.2(c) is an unpleasant restriction, which probably violates (does
violate, IMO) point 3 of the DFSG.
We understand the unpleasantness to some of 2.2(c), but we don't think
that it violates the OSD.
You cannot
According to Jules Bean:
Don't patronise me, please. I can read. I can be
wrong... certainly. But I do know how to read.
I'm not patronizing you. I'm just taking nothing for granted about
who understands what. It's a necessary evil in low-bandwidth
communication.
Must! I *must* notify
According to Jules Bean:
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Jules:
Must! I *must* notify apple by filling out the form. If I can't,
for any of the reasons I suggested above, I cannot distribute the
derived work.
If Apple fails to make the given web site available, then
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Jules Bean:
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
Jules:
Must! I *must* notify apple by filling out the form. If I can't,
for any of the reasons I suggested above, I cannot distribute the
derived work.
If
you keep arguing about whether the notification clause is free or not with
the excuse what if it can't be done? that's not imho why it's not free. it
is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute modified code
to perform a service for a particular entity, apple. whether this is
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Jules Bean:
I understand your interpretation, Chip.
It's the interpretation I'd make, if I had my 'reasonably man' hat on.
Well, since that's the standard that would apply in court, I feel I've
made my point.
I regret to say that
According to Jules Bean:
Why don't you (try to) persuade Apple to adjust the wording which
makes the 'reasonable' explanation explicit?
Hm... OK, what do you think should change, exactly? Would explicit
handling of the web site down be enough?
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Jules Bean:
Why don't you (try to) persuade Apple to adjust the wording which
makes the 'reasonable' explanation explicit?
Hm... OK, what do you think should change, exactly? Would explicit
handling of the web site down be
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More generally, though, the OSD is like any formal standard -- besides
the legalistic meeting of requirements, there are issues of Quality Of
Implementation.
Sure, but that's only good for the blatantly obvious issues. There's
another class of subtler
According to Jonathan P Tomer:
it is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute
modified code to perform a service for a particular entity, apple.
So does the BSD advertising clause.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When do you work? Whenever I'm
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Jonathan P Tomer:
it is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute
modified code to perform a service for a particular entity, apple.
So does the BSD advertising clause.
FWIW, it doesn't. It restricts advertising,
According to Raul Miller:
[Chip, you subscribed to debian-legal? Or do you only get copies if
they're explicitly mailed to you?]
I'm subscribed. I'm in the queue to be a Debian developer, too.
According to Jonathan P Tomer:
it is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute
it is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute
modified code to perform a service for a particular entity, apple.
So does the BSD advertising clause.
subtle difference: the bsd advertising clause (which few people like anyway)
only requires a service for -advertisement-.
According to Jonathan P Tomer:
it is non free because it requires those who wish to distribute
modified code to perform a service for a particular entity, apple.
So does the BSD advertising clause.
subtle difference: the bsd advertising clause (which few people like
anyway) only
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it 'Open Source'? The OSD says it is.
Hrm.. maybe I didn't understand your response to my point about
revocation clauses then:
Take the case of some Open Source software which automatically expires
one day after download from the official site. Now,
According to Raul Miller:
The problem is that if anyone bases their decision based on Open Source
certification they'll find themselves up a creek when they hit the
license revocation conditions. If they can hit those conditions without
doing anything unreasonable, they've had their trust
I wrote:
They are not. A contract requires consideration on both sides.
Chip Salzenberg writes:
You get the code. They get your changes.
With a free license, so does everybody else.
What do you think the I Agree button is for?
So everyone must go to the Apple site to get the code and
According to John Hasler:
So everyone must go to the Apple site to get the code and click
the button? No one can redistribute the code?
That's an interesting question.
On the one hand, Apple couldn't possibly intend that to be so.
On the other hand, distribution that isn't based on a
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Raul Miller:
The problem is that if anyone bases their decision based on Open Source
certification they'll find themselves up a creek when they hit the
license revocation conditions. If they can hit those conditions without
doing
I've not gotten the whole picture yet, but I'd like to pass this bit
on to you...
According to John Hasler:
So everyone must go to the Apple site to get the code and click the
button? No one can redistribute the code?
Apple sez No. They do _not_ expect everyone to go click I Agree.
--
Chip
According to Jules Bean:
Forcing a report at every stage of the way is too much of an
impediment, IMO.
The APSL is satisfied if you just automatically make diffs with a cron
job, and put them at the same URL every night.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When do
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Jules Bean:
Forcing a report at every stage of the way is too much of an
impediment, IMO.
The APSL is satisfied if you just automatically make diffs with a cron
job, and put them at the same URL every night.
Yeah, you're right.
According to Seth David Schoen:
If the current OSD is all they see, there's a lot of room for
confusion, perhaps because of the number of things the DFSG took for
granted.
OSI has never made an explicit or implicit contract to call something
Open Source just because it meets the OSD. So the
According to John Hasler:
Chip Salzenberg writes:
We assumed that the export clause was a no-op, given that Apple is a US
corporation.
Consider this scenario: I print out a piece of export restricted APSL
source code, fly to Germany with it, and give it to Marcus. According to
the US
Seth David Schoen wrote:
Much obliged for your interest. (I'm not on debian-legal; is it a public
list?)
Yes it is. (Note the mail you got had the address wrong; I'm bad about that..
I'll pass the rest of your reply on to the right address.)
My concerns about the export controls have been
According to Joey Hess:
I think you're quite right, this is another thing that makes the APSL
non-free. There's even precedent; IIRC packages have been kicked out of
debian in the past for having copyrights that explicitly said they couldn't
be used in embargoed countries.
For those of you
On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 09:51:11AM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
I think you're quite right, this is another thing that makes the APSL
non-free. There's even precedent; IIRC packages have been kicked out of
debian in the past for having copyrights that explicitly said they couldn't
be used
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to Joseph Carter:
I _DO NOT_ like liars and that is exactly what you people at OSI are
doing, lying to me.
Hm. And the possibility that we just misjudged the license is entirely
beyond your ability to believe, eh?
I've never
Hm. And the possibility that we just misjudged the license is entirely
beyond your ability to believe, eh?
Please don't take Mr. Carter too seriously. He is a bit of a hothead, and
represents only himself.
However, I would like to hear that OSI has told Apple to stop calling the
present APSL
According to Ben Pfaff:
I've never heard a retraction from anyone at OSI, especially Eric
Raymond, regarding whether the APSL meets the OSD. Is the OSI's
official position now that the APSL does *not* meet the OSD?
We haven't had a board meeting since the Apple announcement.
Therefore, OSI's
According to John Hasler:
I also find it a bit worrisome that you could misjudge such an
obviously non-free license.
== PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS ==
== I don't speak for OSI on this, not yet anyway ==
We assumed that the export clause was a no-op, given that Apple is a
US corporation. We were,
Chip Salzenberg writes:
According to Joey Hess:
I think you're quite right, this is another thing that makes the APSL
non-free. There's even precedent; IIRC packages have been kicked out of
debian in the past for having copyrights that explicitly said they couldn't
be used in embargoed
On Sat, Mar 27, 1999 at 12:14:50PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
I _DO NOT_ like liars and that is exactly what you people at OSI are
doing, lying to me.
Hm. And the possibility that we just misjudged the license is entirely
beyond your ability to believe, eh?
It is. Especially after
Chip Salzenberg writes:
We assumed that the export clause was a no-op, given that Apple is a US
corporation.
Consider this scenario: I print out a piece of export restricted APSL
source code, fly to Germany with it, and give it to Marcus. According to
the US courts, I have done nothing
Hi Seth, I just saw http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/apsl.html on slashdot and
read your point that the license says:
13.1 Export Law Assurances. You may not use or otherwise export or
re-export the Original Code except as authorized by United
States law and the
48 matches
Mail list logo
