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 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); > > 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. Things like this make me question whether the 2004 decision to consider the APSL 2.0 non-DFSG-compliant is still valid in 2022. In fact, after reading through the thread [1] the wiki references making the APSL 2.0 incompatible with the DFSG, I'm not so sure it does that. IANAL, but from what I could understand it seemed that there was a good argument that the alleged non-DFSG clauses actually *did* comply with the DFSG, and that argument wasn't fully refuted. The wiki references one other thread, but that thread is specifically about the APSL 1.2, which the APSL 2.0 fixes the issues of according to the FSF. That thread was finished about two years before the APSL 2.0 came into existence. I just want to reopen the issue of whether or not the APSL 2.0, not 1.2, is DFSG-compliant, reviewing it fully instead of relying on a questionable decision made in 2001/4. Thanks, -- Ben Westover [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00573.html
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature