[Top][All Lists]

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

[bug#55998] [PATCH] gnu: Add cctools.

From: Philip McGrath
Subject: [bug#55998] [PATCH] gnu: Add cctools.
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:00:23 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1

On 6/15/22 15:35, Maxime Devos wrote:
Philip McGrath schreef op wo 15-06-2022 om 15:06 [-0400]:
I agree that the choice-of-law language is less than friendly to users.

The FSF has issued an opinion [1] that the 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

I am not contesting that FSF considers APSL 2.0 to be a free software
license.  In fact, I looked at that web page to look at why FSF
considers it to be a free software license.  But I didn't find any
answer about the ‘dispute resolution’ clause.  So it seems to me that
FSF overlooked that particular issue, considered it acceptable because
of the US being based in the US, or considered it acceptable due to
some other (unknown) reason.

In case of the FSF overlooking things: mistakes can and should be
corrected (this is a free software distro!).  In case of US-centrism:
err, no.  In case of an unknwon reason: reason is unknown.

According to <>, "It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both."

That paragraph was apparently added in version 1.129, in 2012, but the note says that "this was always our policy": <>

So it is not a matter of something being overlooked. Some other FSF-free licenses include similar provisions, which generally seem to make the license in question not GPL-compatible. For example: <>.

The point is being free, not being stamped as free by the FSF.

IIUC, (guix licenses) only defines FSDG-compatible licenses.

Apparently, it doesn't, given the presence of the APSL 2.0, though
that's a bug.

Certainly there are broader community governance questions
implicated, but I don't think this patch needs to resolve them.

I did not ask anything about community governance?

I meant "community governance" broadly to include questions like, "Who decides what 'free' means?" Since I basically agree with statements like <>, I think there are troubling questions about the FSF's role and how such decisions ought to be made in the future. Still, IIUC Guix's current policy is <>, which links to <> for its definition of "free license". Bugs are one thing, but this seems to be an explicitly allowed under the existing policy, and I don't think this patch is the right place to debate substantive changes to Guix's policy.


reply via email to

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