Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
"Arc Riley" <arcriley@gmail.com> wrote: [...]
> What I am continually having to re-iterate in this thread is that this only
> applies to those who are running modified copies of code which is not
> already available online, that a free VCS solution is suitable, and it
> you're only required to share the source code with people you've already
> opted to allow remote access to your modified version.
If the previously-available modified copy that you are using goes
offline, does one then have to post the source?
Is there a generally-accepted statement from FSF that a free VCS
solution is sufficient, or is this interpretation only valid for PySol?
How can an application deny remote access to people without
interacting with them at all?
> If you believe this is non-free, then please present a definitive situation
> or set of conditions in which you believe the AGPLv3 license violates DFSG.
It's almost impossible to do it in a definitive way: AGPL is a
*license*, DFSG concern *software*. We can try to guess how some
hypothetical piece of software under default interpretations will
behave, but that's not definitive. For example, one copyright holder
can come out and say that a free VCS solution is sufficient, while
another may disagree.
[...]
> The only matters at hand is correcting misunderstandings of the license and
> debating whether the license qualifies as DFSG, something that has not been
> resolved yet. If your project is going to judge a FSF license as
> DFSG-nonfree it should not be based on misunderstanding. You should almost
> certainly have a lawyer in this discussion and have someone more
> knowledgable than myself (IANAL) on the AGPLv3 engaged in this debate.
Equally, if the project decides to accept a licence, it should not be
based on someone's misunderstandings that a free VCS host is
sufficient if it is not.
I'm pretty sure that there are lawyers reading this list, but this
discussion is so vague and based on personal opinions and hypothetical
situations, I can't really blame them for not getting involved yet.
It has not been possible to engage more knowledgable people in this
debate. The FSF apparently no longer engages in email discussion,
sending debate on draft licences to a buggy-beyond-usable webapp.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: