4 ms·
I was about to correct you, but, in looking over the FSF opinion on APSL 2.0, I noticed that while APSL 2.0 is considered a free software license, I had forgott
by huxley 15y ago
I was about to correct you, but, in looking over the FSF opinion on APSL 2.0, I noticed that while APSL 2.0 is considered a free software license, I had forgotten that the APSL 2.0 license is still incompatible with GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html
Huh. I was pleasantly surprised by the sentence: "Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a license that could qualify."
- microtherion 15y agoYes. RMS was highly critical of APSL 1.0 http://www.linuxtoday.com/mailprint.php3?action=pv<sn=1999-03-22-001-05-NW-LF http://www.linuxtoday.com/mailprint.php3?action=pv<sn=... So Apple revised the APSL to address some of his concerns.