Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00805.html >> > >> > is a list of software "uses" that are hard to distinguish from each >> > other in a license, so would all require full source to be made publicly >> > available. > > On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote: >> What are you trying to say here? >> >> * That providing a service in this context necessarily includes the >> mail-order typesetting scenario? > > Of course it does. Why would delivery via paper confer fewer rights on > the user than delivery by email or HTTP?
Well, the APSL specifically says that the service must be "through electronic communication" to qualify: http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt Though that was as much my mistake as yours, for choosing my example carelessly. How about a web server, instead? Do you think that using a web server to make your content available to others qualifies as providing a service? Do you think Apple thinks so? In the list you referenced, the service goes electronic when Joe receives the document via email, munges it, and sends it back. Even there, I think it's hard to claim that Joe is using the "Covered Code, alone or as part of a Larger Work, in any way to provide a service." It's only when Joe sets up a procmail recipe that automatically munges, and then sends back the results, that the APSL is triggered. IMHO, at any rate. > Also true, but I think it's more about the fundamental problem that this > is a non-free restriction than about abuse by licensors. I'm not convinced we can clearly get non-free out of the DFSG on this one. I don't buy the discrimination against fields of endeavor, and unlike the affero GPL this isn't a restriction on modification. It's a restriction, yes. And not one I particularly like, if the truth be known. But the analogy between this restriction and the source-redistribution restriction of the GPL is simply too strong for me to ignore it. If you assume that the definition of "Externally Deploy" (or more specifically, "provide a service") is going to be reasonable I have trouble seeing where you can say it's not DFSG free. I'm ready to say that the license is a bit ambiguous and needs clarification, but I'm not convinced that what Apple is trying to do is non-free. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03