On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:06:23AM +0200, Mihai Moldovan wrote: > * 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.
For sure it fails the Dissident Test. > 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 >
