APSL 1.2

Ron Dumont rond at apple.com
Thu Apr 5 17:20:39 UTC 2001


Just to clarify.  The APSL 1.2 actually makes an *exception* for Private 
Use (as well as internal R&D); i.e. Private Use is not considered a 
"Deployment" and therefore such use is exempt from the requirements 
attached to Covered Code that is Deployed.

 From the APSL 1.2 definitions:

"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."


"1.8 'Personal Use' means use of Covered Code by an individual solely 
for his or her personal, private and non-commercial purposes. An 
individual's use of Covered Code in his or her capacity as an officer, 
employee, member,  independent contractor or agent of a corporation, 
business or organization (commercial or non-commercial) does not qualify 
as Personal Use."

Hope this helps.

Ron Dumont
Apple Open Source Program Manager


Date:        4/4/01 12:26 PM
 From:        David Johnson, david at usermode.org

We're aware that Richard Stallman believes that a free software license 
should not require disclosure of private use; no need to tell us of that.

I would definitely try to get Stallman's approval. So far, all Open 
Source licenses are also Free Software licenses(*). It would be sad if 
the APSL was the one to fall through the crack between the definitions.

Is there a pressing need or interest for private use to be disclosed? I 
think it's a minor point, though. Perhaps you could make a distinction 
between running the program from a single server within a company, 
versus passing around copies between employees?

(*) The Artistic License might be an exception, but it does meet the 
definition in letter and spirit.

David Johnson

More information about the License-discuss mailing list