On 4/20/20 12:32 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: >> Any commercial product using GPL-2 must share the source code publicly, the >> same applies to the APSL-1.2. There is no difference. > > No. the GPL requires you only to give the sources to the recipient of the > work, > not to everyone which is the defintiopn of "publicily" [1].
I don't see any difference from a distribution point of view. Apple's APSL is even less restrictive than the GPL-2 here as it does not require you to share your modifications among your friends or for R&D. The GPL-2 requires that, the APSL not. Furthermore, the question that is relevant for the dissident test - that was used as argument for calling the license non-free - is whether sharing your modifications with your friends would require you to make these modifications public. And that is clearly not the case. And, devdisk_cmds (which is what hfsprogs is derived from) is part of the Fedora main distribution [1]. So RedHat's lawyers seem to agree that the license can be considered free. It's not distributed in openSUSE for the moment, but as a SUSE employee, I should be able to ask our lawyers. In any case, I will be contacting Apple now and I will ask for their assessment as I don't think we're getting further in this discussion if the goal posts keep moving. Thanks, Adrian > [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hfsplus-tools/ -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
