[OT] What is Open Source? (was Re: ANN: Twisted 0.16.0...)

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Huaiyu" == Huaiyu Zhu <huaiyu at gauss.almadan.ibm.com> writes:

    Huaiyu> The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 1.2 is
    Huaiyu> listed as "Non-Free Software License" on
    Huaiyu> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html, mainly
    Huaiyu> because of "Possibility of revocation at any time".

Ah, I missed that one.  But note it's not the revocation problem,
that's listed as fixed as of 1.2.

It's the "must publish deployed software" clause that's objectionable.

    Huaiyu> To me, one counterexample is enough, and one with a clear
    Huaiyu> explanation is very satisfying.

It's actually not a clear counterexample for the definition.  What I
mean is that I think that clause violates section 6 of the OSD.  It
clearly discriminates against internal business uses vis-a-vis
personal and R&D uses.

But that does make the covered portions of MacOS/X open-source but not
free.  I wonder what the OSI was thinking when they made that
decision.  The FSF's objection to the "deployment" clause was
well-known from earlier versions of the APSL.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
              Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.