On 11/9/02 8:52 PM, Karsten M. Self at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > on Sat, Nov 09, 2002, Chris F Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> 1) requires users to return to us modifications made to the code for >> incoporation into a future version (whether they otherwise >> distribute those changes or not). > > Why? There are those (though by no means all) who argue that this is > contrary to open source definitions. Many of those who don't share this > view _still_ feel that such a requirement is counter to norms within the > free software community, and tends to greatly _reduce_ third-party > participation, as they are excessive intrusions of privacy. > > Apple and Sun licenses exist with such clauses, they've been widely and > strongly criticised.
Hello Karsten: I'd like to perhaps correct a common (lingering) misperception about the APSL. After receiving criticism on the post-back-to-us requirement, Apple quickly eliminated this requirement way back in APSL version 1.1 (April 1999). The current version 1.2 -- Section 2.2(c) -- only suggests that you make your Deployed Modifications available "electronically (e.g. download from a web site)." I'm not entirely clear if this was your perception of the APSL, but if so it was changed back in 1999. Thanks much. - Joyce -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
