[distcc] Re: Finding peers: zeroconf/rendezvous?

[Bret Mogilefsky]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:31:12 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> According to the most recent FSF statement I can find, it is not
> compatible.  You therefore cannot distribute a work derived from distcc
> that also contains code licenced under the APSL 1.2.
> 
>   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

I believe the compatibility of the APSL with the GPL in this case comes
down to what You (You as in "distcc the project") would be doing with the
code.  Here's a comment from Bruce Perens summing it up, FWIW (from
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9772&cid=528983):

"I audited this license while Apple was working on the draft. It's a good
license. The only way in which it is GPL-incompatible is that it requires
that you disclose some source code when the GPL would not. GPL only
requires source code disclosure with distribution, APSL requires it if you
use the code for your business [note: business but not individual use
-mogul], even if you do not distribute it."

This seems to jibe with the FSF page you pointed to... The FSF's
"disrespect for privacy" objection remains, but in this case You're not
trying to keep changes private, because You're distributing them with
distcc.  I think this is an instance where the two licenses overlap,
though of course the usual IANAL disclaimers apply.

I guess the question is, what happens when a business then takes distcc
and makes modifications to the zeroconf portions of it for their private
use, not realizing that that code is under the more restrictive APSL
(restrictive in that you're required to make your changes known) and not
the GPL?  In this case, distcc isn't violating the license, but that
business would be.  This may be reason enough not add zeroconf in the
first place.  Then again it might be a reason TO do it, but make it
available as a "contrib"-type patch to make the licensing requirements
explicit.  In that case it would still benefit anyone who's actually
interested in helping distcc evolve (read: make their changes public),
whether they're a business or individual.


Bret