(c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications publicly
available under the terms of this License, including the license grants
set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code
or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is
longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed
Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site); and
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=666707
[2] https://sources.debian.org/src/hfsprogs/332.25-11/debian/copyright/
[3] https://opensource.apple.com/source/diskdev_cmds/diskdev_cmds-332.25/newfs_hfs.tproj/newfs_hfs.c.auto.html
[4] https://opensource.apple.com/source/diskdev_cmds/diskdev_cmds-332.25/fsck_hfs.tproj/fsck_hfs.c.auto.html
[5] https://opensource.apple.com/source/diskdev_cmds/diskdev_cmds-332.25/mount_hfs.tproj/mount_hfs.c.auto.html
[6] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/09/msg00103.html
[7] http://snapshot.debian.org/package/hfsprogs/
[8] https://opensource.apple.com/source/hfs/hfs-522.0.9/APPLE_LICENSE.auto.html
[9] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00573.html
* On 4/20/20 9:03 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Secondly, for the APSL-1.2, it seems that the only clause that makes the license non-DFSG-compliant is this one:
(c) You must make Source Code of all Your Deployed Modifications publicly
available under the terms of this License, including the license grants
set forth in Section 3 below, for as long as you Deploy the Covered Code
or twelve (12) months from the date of initial Deployment, whichever is
longer. You should preferably distribute the Source Code of Your Deployed
Modifications electronically (e.g. download from a web site); and
It was claimed in [6] that this clause makes the APSL-1.2 non-DFSG-compliant as it's
not possible for Debian to keep every single modification around for at least
12 months.
This claim may have been valid in 2001, but I think it does not hold up for 2020 since source code to packaging in Debian is usually maintained in Salsa or Github and therefore keeping all modifications available for 12 months and longer, plus there is Debian Snapshots [7] which keeps a older versions of a package around as well - including source code.
It may or may not fail the Desert Island Test, depending on how broad "publicly"
is interpreted.
While it may not be a huge (technical) problem for the Debian Project to comply
to this term specifically, any user (and modifier) of this code would need to find a way to publish their own modifications for at least the given time - and
maybe even longer based on their "deployment" (which includes current usage). This sounds like a pretty difficult thing to do for individuals.
Mihai
Does it? The part which requires the availability of the source changes explicitlyThis claim may have been valid in 2001, but I think it does not hold up for >>> 2020 since source code to packaging in Debian is usually maintained in
Salsa or Github and therefore keeping all modifications available for 12 >>> months and longer, plus there is Debian Snapshots [7] which keeps a older >>> versions of a package around as well - including source code.
It may or may not fail the Desert Island Test, depending on how broad "publicly"
is interpreted.
For sure it fails the Dissident Test.
* On 4/20/20 10:48 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
For sure it fails the Dissident Test.Does it? The part which requires the availability of the source changes explicitly
talks about deployment of the software, i.e. distribution, not personal use which
would be the criteria for the dissident test.
If I'm using the software for myself and modify it, I'm free to keep the modifications
to myself unless I distribute the software, so I don't think the clause would fail
the test.
Yes, but the Dissident Test explicitly includes distribution to friends.
1.4 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than
for Your internal research and development (R&D) and/or Personal Use,
and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution
of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use
and/or Personal Use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or
distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.
On 4/20/20 11:04 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
* On 4/20/20 10:48 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
For sure it fails the Dissident Test.Does it? The part which requires the availability of the source changes explicitly
talks about deployment of the software, i.e. distribution, not personal use which
would be the criteria for the dissident test.
If I'm using the software for myself and modify it, I'm free to keep the modifications
to myself unless I distribute the software, so I don't think the clause would fail
the test.
Yes, but the Dissident Test explicitly includes distribution to friends.
I don't think that sharing your software with friends qualifies to the term "Software Deployment" that Apple is talking about here. Personal Use is explicitly excluded from the deployment term, even when the source is distributed.
In 1.4, the license states:
1.4 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than
for Your internal research and development (R&D) and/or Personal Use,
and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution
of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use
and/or Personal Use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or
distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner.
It's pretty obvious from this clause that the requirement to provide the sources
of your modifications for at least 12 months applies to commercial distribution
only.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
It's pretty obvious from this clause that the requirement to provide the sources
of your modifications for at least 12 months applies to commercial distribution
only.
Distributing to friends may cross the line of personal use. And !"personal use" != "commercial use".
(I define "personal use" as individual use; not use of a group.)
Also, there may be an Dissident Inc; also that needs the Dissident Test to pass.
The last sentence reads to me that distributiong to 3rd parties is Deployment.
Your dissident friend is a "third party".
However, if it is the intention of that paragraph that commercial use is to be
treated differently, this alone would alone is a reason to call a license non-free (DFSG §6).
On 4/20/20 12:15 PM, Tobias Frost wrote:
It's pretty obvious from this clause that the requirement to provide the sources
of your modifications for at least 12 months applies to commercial distribution
only.
Distributing to friends may cross the line of personal use. And !"personal use" != "commercial use".
(I define "personal use" as individual use; not use of a group.)
Also, there may be an Dissident Inc; also that needs the Dissident Test to pass.
The last sentence reads to me that distributiong to 3rd parties is Deployment.
Your dissident friend is a "third party".
However, if it is the intention of that paragraph that commercial use is to be
treated differently, this alone would alone is a reason to call a license non-free (DFSG §6).
How is that different from the GPL-2 which mandates three years of distribution
for non-personal distribution. I have the impression that you are applying double-standards here.
Any commercial product using GPL-2 must share the source code publicly, the same applies to the APSL-1.2. There is no difference.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
On 4/20/20 12:32 PM, Tobias Frost wrote:
Any commercial product using GPL-2 must share the source code publicly, the
same applies to the APSL-1.2. There is no difference.
No. the GPL requires you only to give the sources to the recipient of the work,
not to everyone which is the defintiopn of "publicily" [1].
I don't see any difference from a distribution point of view. Apple's APSL
is even less restrictive than the GPL-2 here as it does not require you
to share your modifications among your friends or for R&D. The GPL-2
requires that, the APSL not.
Furthermore, the question that is relevant for the dissident test - that
was used as argument for calling the license non-free - is whether sharing your modifications with your friends would require you to make these modifications public. And that is clearly not the case.
And, devdisk_cmds (which is what hfsprogs is derived from) is part of the Fedora main distribution [1]. So RedHat's lawyers seem to agree that the license can be considered free. It's not distributed in openSUSE for the moment, but as a SUSE employee, I should be able to ask our lawyers.
In any case, I will be contacting Apple now and I will ask for their assessment
as I don't think we're getting further in this discussion if the goal posts keep moving.
Thanks,
Adrian
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hfsplus-tools/
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Any commercial product using GPL-2 must share the source code publicly, the >> same applies to the APSL-1.2. There is no difference.
No. the GPL requires you only to give the sources to the recipient of the work,
not to everyone which is the defintiopn of "publicily" [1].
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hfsplus-tools/
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:14:15PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:[...]
I don't see any difference from a distribution point of view. Apple's APSL is even less restrictive than the GPL-2 here as it does not require you
to share your modifications among your friends or for R&D. The GPL-2 requires that, the APSL not.
That is not the point. Excess distribution is the problem. I have to offer the
code to people I have not interacted with.
(And the license does not say anything about friends, just about RD departements)
Furthermore, the question that is relevant for the dissident test - that was used as argument for calling the license non-free - is whether sharing your modifications with your friends would require you to make these modifications public. And that is clearly not the case.
As said, IMHO, distributing to the friend of a dissident is considered as Deployment.
But maybe Apple is willing to relicnese it to Apache 2.0, then it would be worth a try. (ASFAIK they did so with some projets having this license)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 47:17:58 |
| Calls: | 6,648 |
| Files: | 12,198 |
| Messages: | 5,329,924 |