Hello! I have done some research and I do not think that the claim that this software is not dfsg-free is correct.
First of all, the license claimed in debian/copyright is incorrect. The upstream package that hfsprogs is based on - diskdev_cmds-332.25 [1] - is not covered by the APSL-2.0 but versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 [2, 3, 4]. Secondly, the APSL-1.2 [5] does not fail the dissident test in my opinion as claimed in [6] as the paragraph 2.2 (c), which mandates the public distribution of modifications to the software package, talks about "Deployed Modifications", i.e. public distribution: > (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 What "Deploy" means, is explained in 1.4: > 1.4 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than > for Your internal research and development (R&D) and/or Personal Use, > and includes without limitation, any and all internal use or distribution > of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use > and/or Personal Use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or > distribution > of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner. Thus, the license does not fail the dissident test as explained in [7] as the requirement for public distribution of modifications explicitly excludes personal use and/or use in research and development. I do not see how the APSL-1.2 deviates from the GPL-2 here which also requires the distribution of modifications outside personal use [8]: > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under > Section > 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 > above > provided that you also do one of the following: > > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source > code, > which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on > a > medium customarily used for software interchange; or, > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to > give > any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically > performing > source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the > corresponding > source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 > above on > a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, > c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to > distribute > corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for > noncommercial > distribution and only if you received the program in object code or > executable > form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) The GPL-2 is even stricter as it mandates three years of availability of modifications in 3. b) while the APSL-1.2 requires only 12 months. Adrian > [1] https://opensource.apple.com/source/diskdev_cmds/diskdev_cmds-332.25/ > [2] > https://opensource.apple.com/source/diskdev_cmds/diskdev_cmds-332.25/newfs_hfs.tproj/newfs_hfs.c.auto.html > [3] > https://opensource.apple.com/source/diskdev_cmds/diskdev_cmds-332.25/fsck_hfs.tproj/fsck_hfs.c.auto.html > [4] > https://opensource.apple.com/source/diskdev_cmds/diskdev_cmds-332.25/mount_hfs.tproj/mount_hfs.c.auto.html > [5] https://opensource.apple.com/source/hfs/hfs-522.0.9/APPLE_LICENSE > [6] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/09/msg00103.html > [7] https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest > [8] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html -- .''`. 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
