unofficial mirror of guix-devel@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0
@ 2022-06-16  6:21 Philip McGrath
  2022-06-16  7:43 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Philip McGrath @ 2022-06-16  6:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Guix Devel; +Cc: Maxime Devos, (

Hi Guix,

Is the Apple Public Source License 2.0 (APSL-2.0 [1]) a free license 
according to Guix's standards?

In <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/55998>, I sent a patch adding a package 
under this license, and Maxime Devos pointed out this choice-of-forum 
provision, which I agree is quite one-sided:

 > 13.6 Dispute Resolution. Any litigation or other dispute resolution
 > between You and Apple relating to this License shall take place in the
 > Northern District of California, and You and Apple hereby consent to
 > the personal jurisdiction of, and venue in, the state and federal
 > courts within that District with respect to this License. The
 > application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
 > International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.

We thought this list was a better place for any discussion of Guix's 
policy that needs to happen.

As I understand it, Guix's current policy is the Free System 
Distribution Guidelines published at [2], which links to [3] for its 
definition of "free license". That definition says (at [4]), "It is 
acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's law 
applies, or where litigation must be done, or both."

The revision notes [5] say that paragraph was added in version 1.129, 
from 2012, but that "this was always our policy".

The FSF has issued an opinion [6] that APSL-2.0 is a free software 
license: they say that "Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a 
license that would qualify" (after problems with earlier versions of the 
license).

Is this satisfactory for Guix? Or does Guix want to forbid such 
choice-of-forum provisions? In the latter case `apsl2`, and maybe other 
definitions, presumable would need to be removed from `(guix licenses)`.

My personal view:

I wouldn't recommend using this license: indeed, even Apple seems to 
have moved away from it for newer projects (often to Apache-2.0). If 
established guidelines *hadn't* allowed this kind of one-sided 
choice-of-forum provision, I wouldn't have found it particularly 
surprising. I think there are important community governance questions 
around how questions like this ought to be answered (basically, I agree 
with [7]).

Still, I'm in favor of the status quo. I think fragmentation over 
license policies has a significant cost for the community, and this does 
not seem to be sufficiently problematic to be worth a schism.

I'm not a lawyer, so take this paragraph lease seriously, but I also 
think the concrete impact is less than it might first seem. We accept 
choice-of-forum provisions like the one in MPL-2.0 ("Any litigation 
relating to this License may be brought only in the courts of a 
jurisdiction where the defendant maintains its principal place of 
business and such litigation shall be governed by laws of that 
jurisdiction, without reference to its conflict-of-law provisions.") [8] 
which would require you to sue Apple in California. We also accept 
licenses like the GPL that don't have any choice-of-forum provisions: 
the law of "personal jurisdiction" and venue is complex, but I would not 
be shocked if Apple could sue you in California in this case. My 
impression is that it would be very difficult to require something like 
a "freedom not to litigate in California" (especially so for all 
possible values of "California") without rejecting many 
currently-accepted licenses.

-Philip

[1]: https://spdx.org/licenses/APSL-2.0.html
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
[3]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[4]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#legal-details
[5]: 
https://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?r1=1.128&r2=1.129
[6]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html
[7]: https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/
[8]: https://spdx.org/licenses/MPL-2.0.html


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-06-17 21:14 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-06-16  6:21 FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0 Philip McGrath
2022-06-16  7:43 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2022-06-16 22:02   ` Philip McGrath
2022-06-17  9:06     ` zimoun
2022-06-17  9:39       ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 10:00         ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2022-06-17 17:06           ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 20:11             ` Felix Lechner
2022-06-17 21:14               ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 14:37         ` zimoun
2022-06-17 15:52           ` Philip McGrath
2022-06-17  9:40       ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 17:11 ` Maxime Devos
2022-06-17 17:13 ` Maxime Devos

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).