Don Armstrong wrote: > In > http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20030310.011933.4c275bbf.html > for example, this test was applied (in effect) to a situation > confronting the Affero license. I would like to voice my opinion at this point that while the Affero license was certainly non-free (because it required the source be distributed via HTTP), a more carefully written requirement that source must be distributed and freedoms given to the *users* of a piece of software still seems reasonable to me. Saying that this is not the case because the software is not being distributed to those users would allow technical workarounds for copyleft, as long as a user can use software without actually receiving it, such as interacting with it over a website. At the end of the day, the point of Free Software is to give freedom to the users of that of software. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature