[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes: > That's an interesting idea, but it is not what is written there: the > APSL talks about using the software in any way to provide a service. > So when considering the question "Is Joe using the software in any > way to provide a service?", is "No" an answer you find reasonable? > Can you truly state "Joe is not using the software in any way to > provide a service"?
All I'm trying to say is that there is a reasonable interpretation of the license. What's more, I suspect that the stuff Apple cares about falls under the reasonable interpretation. After all, if I understand your objections, they'd be satisfied if Apple agreed that "providing a service" doesn't apply to situations where a person is using the software to manually provide a service (e.g., your email-based typesetting service). Is that correct? Am I trying to say that the license, as written, is clear & ok? Absolutely not. But I do think that, given the basic structure of the license and a bit of work ironing out details, it could be made DFSG free. Personally, in addition to the above I'd like to see an exemption for works that implement well-known services, but that would be tricky and I don't think it's necessary for the DFSG. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
