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
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 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
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:
> 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
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 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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
