From: Philip McGrath <philip@philipmcgrath.com>
To: Guix Devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>
Cc: Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>, "(" <paren@disroot.org>
Subject: FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 02:21:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a936625d-500b-5112-e77e-28d0b4b608dd@philipmcgrath.com> (raw)
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
next reply other threads:[~2022-06-16 6:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-16 6:21 Philip McGrath [this message]
2022-06-16 7:43 ` FSDG-compatibility of APSL-2.0 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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a936625d-500b-5112-e77e-28d0b4b608dd@philipmcgrath.com \
--to=philip@philipmcgrath.com \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=maximedevos@telenet.be \
--cc=paren@disroot.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).