Re: APSL 1.1
Raul Miller writes:
> > Personally, I have no problems with them distributing software under this
> > license (that's outside my scope): I just would hate to see us
> > misclassify this as a free license.
John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> The problem is that others will misclassify this as a free license even if
> we don't.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the wrong issue.
We represent a significant slice of the free software community.
We need to make our goals clear. But we've already accepted that our
user community will be using a wider slice of software than what's in
our scope. And, to a significant degree, we support this (for instance,
just today I noticed that slink's cdrom installation method explicitly
prompts for the location of non-free).
It's clear to me that we can't accept Apple's license in it's current
form into debian (imagine what it would do to cdrom distributors on
thin margins to have Apple declare a major part of their inventory
undistributable). (And, given some of the stunts Apple has pulled
with their supply chains in the past we can expect them to do something
"interesting" in a few years -- maybe sooner.)
It's even plausible that something analogous to the recent Qt/KDE
flap will happen once people get the idea of combining Apple code with
GPLed code. And I agree that that would be sad -- if that happens.
But this license is less obnoxious than previous Apple licenses, and I
can't help but think of that as a sign of progress. It's not something
we'd want to support, but it's also not something to waste a bunch of
angst on.
--
Raul
Reply to: