[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0

From: zimoun
Subject: Re: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 16:37:07 +0200


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 licenses, but about ???’, but I
> cannot find it anymore.

On one hand, I agree: free software is more than just about licenses,
because it is about quality of code, good documentation, nice community,

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 another frame, etc. and each project qualifies via this frame.

Guix is part of GNU and the GNU project lists the acceptable and
unacceptable licenses.

Again, if the Guix project would like to apply a more stringent license
policy than the GNU one, then the question is according to which frame.

> Being forced to go to the US as a defendant seems like a very practical


> Not being subject to the US seems worth some extra niche-ness to this
> non-US person.

Bah, it is the same for any license.  Even the GPL.  For instance, the
concept of Copyright under the US Law does not have a one-to-one
equivalent under the French Law.  (See the case Entr’ouvert vs Orange.)

Law, especially international one, is very complex.  We should focus on
what we are doing the best: package, service and distro. :-)  And I
trust enough FSF and others as Software Freedom Conservancy for doing
the best in the legal field.

> ... currently Guix isn't using the APSL2.0 anywhere (according to git
> grep -F aspl), so it seems quite practical and effortless to just
> remove apsl2 from (guix licenses).

It is maybe used by Chromium.

I have nothing against removing APSL2.0 if it is not currently used.
However, I think the Guix project should continue to accept all software
using the licenses on GNU list [1].

About patch#55998, the question is about dependencies and linking
because APSL is incompatible with the GPL.  If all is fine, then let
include ’cctools’ in Guix.

1: <>
2: <>

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 11:40, Maxime Devos <> wrote:
> zimoun schreef op vr 17-06-2022 om 11:06 [+0200]:
>> [...] How do we resolve the disagreements?
> By talking on guix-devel.

Talk does not cook the rice. ;-)

Well, discussions do not always resolve some disagreements, sadly.  If
you consider that A is acceptable and I consider that B is unacceptable,
then we discuss at length and at the end we do not reach any consensus;
you are still on A-side and I am still on B-side.  How would we resolve
at the project level?

Today, the Guix project uses a do-ocracy system where disagreements are
resolved by Guix maintainers.  Enough burden and discussions are already
around without hypothetically adding one about resolving potential
disagreements on license policy, IMHO.  Without mentioning the WANL
sessions. :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]