On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > As an upstream for INN, I think doing such a thing would be completely > absurd, and would rather just drop Berkeley DB support entirely and make > everyone switch to a different overview method than do anything of the > sort. I'm curious, can you elaborate on why as upstream you'd refuse to add something like a protocol command that return a URL pointing to a tarball containing the source code of the INN version the users are running? At times, I'm really surprised by the upfront opposition that AGPL could get in Free Software cycles and I'd like to understand more your motives as an upstream. I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the same kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted software will have to face to uphold GPL (or equivalent) terms. AGPL is really nothing more than the adaptation of copyleft to a world where software usage has shifted from compiled binaries people run on their computers, to services they access over the net. For people who are fine with the copyleft approach (and of course not all of us are) AGPL shouldn't be particularly shocking. In that sense, AGPL is just a new release of GPL that closes a long outstanding bug titled "provide a license port for the Software-as-a-Service era". Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature