* On 4/20/20 12:32 PM, Tobias Frost wrote: >>> Distributing to friends may cross the line of personal use. And !"personal >>> use" != "commercial use". >>> (I define "personal use" as individual use; not use of a group.) >>> >>> Also, there may be an Dissident Inc; also that needs the Dissident Test to >>> pass.
Or something like an NGO, which strictly is also a business (even if not for profit). >>> The last sentence reads to me that distributiong to 3rd parties is >>> Deployment. >>> Your dissident friend is a "third party". >>> >>> However, if it is the intention of that paragraph that commercial use is to >>> be >>> treated differently, this alone would alone is a reason to call a license >>> non-free (DFSG ยง6). No discrimination against fields of endeavor and commercial use. Yep. >> How is that different from the GPL-2 which mandates three years of >> distribution >> for non-personal distribution. I have the impression that you are applying >> double-standards here. >> >> Any commercial product using GPL-2 must share the source code publicly, the >> same applies to the APSL-1.2. There is no difference. > > No. the GPL requires you only to give the sources to the recipient of the > work, > not to everyone which is the defintiopn of "publicily" [1]. Additionally, the "three-year clause" in the GPL v2 is an option (which can easily be circumvented by choosing a different option, e.g., to always distribute binaries and source at the same time) for a written *offer* to distribute sources upon request by the binary recipient. The key difference here is "public" vs. "recipient". For instance, in the Desert Island Test, an entity that is unable to communicate with the island can neither receive binaries nor request source distribution, which is fine. Mihai
