On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:32:06 +0200 Mihai Moldovan wrote:
[...]
> In the thread started by John Paul Adrian Glaubitz in 2020 regarding the APSL
> 1.2, one issue I had with the license was the practical implications employed
> by
> section 2.2 (c) (2.0 version):
>
> > (c) If You Externally Deploy
On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 10:49:05AM +, Stephan Verbücheln wrote:
>On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 10:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> That's not a restriction, though. It's *not* saying "you may not use
>> this software for XXX", it's saying "this software is not intended
>> for XXX". There's quite
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 10:31 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> That's not a restriction, though. It's *not* saying "you may not use
> this software for XXX", it's saying "this software is not intended
> for XXX". There's quite a difference there IMHO.
To me it sounds like a more explicit “No
Mihai wrote:
>
>* On 8/5/22 01:09, Ben Westover wrote:
>> Those are based on conversations that are almost a decade old, and some
>> things have changed since then. I just wanted a re-review of the license
>> in 2022 to see if the complaints from before still hold up today.
>
>I can see how the
* On 8/5/22 01:09, Ben Westover wrote:
> Those are based on conversations that are almost a decade old, and some
> things have changed since then. I just wanted a re-review of the license
> in 2022 to see if the complaints from before still hold up today.
I can see how the outcome of, e.g.,
On Fri, 2022-08-05 at 08:25 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> I wouldn't put any weight on the presence of the APSL 2.0 license
> text
> in the archive, probably it got into Debian in those packages due to
> lack of copyright/license review rather than deliberate acceptance,
> especially since it is in
> Interesting, the APSL 2.0 is seen in some relatively important
> packages like Chromium and QtWebEngine.
What code is exactly under that license? As far as I know, WebKit
itself (which Chromium is a fork of) is licensed under LGPL (KDE code)
and 2-clause BSD (Apple code).
In your example of
Ben Westover writes:
> On August 5, 2022 1:03:18 AM EDT, Walter Landry wrote:
>>As someone who participated in that original exchange in 2004, APSL 2.0
>>still looks impossible to follow. If Debian suddenly goes off-line,
>>Debian is not in compliance with the license.
>
> How exactly does
Hi Walter,
On August 5, 2022 1:03:18 AM EDT, Walter Landry wrote:
>As someone who participated in that original exchange in 2004, APSL 2.0
>still looks impossible to follow. If Debian suddenly goes off-line,
>Debian is not in compliance with the license.
How exactly does Debian "go off-line",
Ben Westover writes:
> Hello,
>
> On 8/4/22 8:30 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
>> What would have changed since the 2004 review of APSL 2.0?
>
> Here's a quote from that 2020 challenge of the APSL-1.2 being considered
> non-free in 2001:
>
>> For the APSL-1.2, it seems that the only clause that makes
Hello,
On 8/4/22 8:30 PM, Paul Wise wrote:
> What would have changed since the 2004 review of APSL 2.0?
Here's a quote from that 2020 challenge of the APSL-1.2 being considered
non-free in 2001:
> For the APSL-1.2, it seems that the only clause that makes the
> license non-DFSG-compliant is
On Thu, 2022-08-04 at 19:09 -0400, Ben Westover wrote:
> Those are based on conversations that are almost a decade old, and some
> things have changed since then. I just wanted a re-review of the license
> in 2022 to see if the complaints from before still hold up today.
What would have
On Thu, 2022-08-04 at 19:15 -0400, Ben Westover wrote:
> Interesting, the APSL 2.0 is seen in some relatively important
> packages like Chromium and QtWebEngine.
I wouldn't put any weight on the presence of the APSL 2.0 license text
in the archive, probably it got into Debian in those packages
Hello Paul,
On 8/4/22 02:32, Paul Wise wrote:
The wiki describes it as being non-free and cites two threads:
https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Apple_Public_Source_License_.28APSL.29
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20010928105424z@physics.utah.edu
Hello Mihai,
On 8/4/22 02:03, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
According to
https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Apple_Public_Source_License_.28APSL.29 ,
which also lists discussions/reasoning for version 1.0 (which is considered
non-free) and your desired version 2.0, it is considered free, but
On Wed, 2022-08-03 at 23:00 -0400, Ben Westover wrote:
> I was wondering if the Apple Public Source License (version 2.0)
> complies with the DFSG. The Free Software Foundation considers it to be
> a free software license (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html),
> but I just wanted to make
* On 8/4/22 05:00, Ben Westover wrote:
> I was wondering if the Apple Public Source License (version 2.0)
> complies with the DFSG. The Free Software Foundation considers it to be
> a free software license (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html),
> but I just wanted to make sure it's
17 matches
Mail list logo
