Re: DFSG-freeness of any license that fixes the ASP loophole
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
> being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
> Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
I suspect it'll be necessary to wait for the final version of the AGPL
before this can be decided. It would probably be unwise for any
developer to adopt a discussion draft in any event.
APGL seems to have a number of problems, and indeed I've just left a
couple of comments of my own on the FSF's discussion draft at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-2.html). Whether the nature
of the problems are enough to make it non-free, though, is difficult
> There are similar attempts to fix the ASP loophole. Consider for example
> the Honest Public License, whose original is at:
One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL,
which is prohibited by the GPL itself.
> When you make it possible for this work or derivative works to be directly
> or indirectly used over a network, you must prominently provide information
> as to how to obtain the complete source code for such work:
> * on the same interface that is provided for the usage of such work
> * or if the above is not possible, on another publicly accessible location
> closely related to your activities
I'm not sure this solves the problem. "You must prominently provide
information as to how to obtain the complete source code". Well,
here's some prominently-provided information:
"PAY ME $25,000 AND I'LL LET YOU DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE FROM A
PASSWORD-PROTECTED AREA OF THIS SITE".
Same interface; prominent information; but clearly non-free (in any
Also, referring to "publicly accessible location" is ambiguous. I
assume this means location as in "server on the network", but it could
just as easily be read as meaning "our headquarters in northern
So I'd say that wording is not DFSG-compliant.