Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Felix Lechner schreef op vr 17-06-2022 om 13:11 [-0700]: > > If you are already in California, [...], but if you don't and > > simply > > Apple needs to appeal to international > > law enforcement or your country in particular, whichever is easier. > > I generally think of license violations as ci

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Hi, On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 10:07 AM Maxime Devos wrote: > > If $local_country makes all software free, such a > clause would likely be illegal in $local_country and thus unenforcible. A country would likely engage in such a wholesale disenfranchisement as a last step, and not the first, after r

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

(zimoun pointed out that I didn't actually send this mail, apparently it never left ‘drafts’. Anyway, just sending this e-mail for completeness; unless someone comes with a new insight or something the discussion appears to be done for now.) Philip McGrath schreef op do 16-06-2022 om 02:21 [-0400

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Doesn't seem to reach some kind of consensus, or maybe there's actually some consensus for considering APSL-2.0 acceptable (albeit suboptimal) for Guix but I'm to biased to see it :p, so I suppose continue with status quo (i.e.: allow APSL-2.0)? Greetings, Maxime. signature.asc Description: This

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op vr 17-06-2022 om 12:00 [+0200]: > Am Freitag, dem 17.06.2022 um 11:39 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: > > The clause is also rather extra-territorial: what if $local_country > > reforms copyright to make all sofware free, if we accepted ‘go to > > this jurisdiction clau

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Hi, On Friday, June 17, 2022 10:37:07 AM EDT zimoun wrote: > > On the other hand, I refuse to judge the intent behind a software. It > appears to me a slippery slope. The only way is to set a clear frame > and then scrutinize using this very frame. Debian defines a frame, GNU > defines anothe

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Hi, On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 11:39, Maxime Devos wrote: > TBC, did you see my previous mail about cherry-picking and power > assymetry. No. And I do not see it in the public archive. > I would like to refer to some blog article about something along the > lines ’free software is not about lice

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Am Freitag, dem 17.06.2022 um 11:39 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: > The clause is also rather extra-territorial: what if $local_country > reforms copyright to make all sofware free, if we accepted ‘go to > this jurisdiction clauses’, then opponents could effectively block > the legally-enforced freei

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

zimoun schreef op vr 17-06-2022 om 11:06 [+0200]: > [...] How do we resolve the disagreements? By talking on guix-devel. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

TBC, did you see my previous mail about cherry-picking and power assymetry. > FWIW, I think that adopting a different (more stringent) license > policy hits two issues: > > 1. Where do you draw the line? Based on which concrete principles > to decide for this or for that? I would like to

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Hi, On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 at 18:02, Philip McGrath wrote: > I don't want to speak for Maxime, but AIUI the question was whether Guix > ought > to continue to accept all licenses on that list, or instead ought adopt some > different (more stringent?) license policy. FWIW, I think that adopting

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Hi, On Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:43:39 AM EDT Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > Hi Philip, > > Am Donnerstag, dem 16.06.2022 um 02:21 -0400 schrieb Philip McGrath: > > Hi Guix, > > > > Is the Apple Public Source License 2.0 (APSL-2.0 [1]) a free license > > according to Guix's standards? > > While

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Hi Philip, Am Donnerstag, dem 16.06.2022 um 02:21 -0400 schrieb Philip McGrath: > Hi Guix, > > Is the Apple Public Source License 2.0 (APSL-2.0 [1]) a free license > according to Guix's standards? While it isn't included in the free licenses list the FSF publishes, from your note [6] I would gue

FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

Hi Guix, Is the Apple Public Source License 2.0 (APSL-2.0 [1]) a free license according to Guix's standards? In , I sent a patch adding a package under this license, and Maxime Devos pointed out this choice-of-forum provision, which I agree is quite one-sid