Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
davi.leals@gmail.com wrote:
> Miriam Ruiz wrote: [...]
> > And, how can one do that and at the same time keep being anonymous
> > (dissident test)?
>
> If you do not modify the code or you do not have remote users, you do not have
> to offer your copy of the Source Code.
=> you cannot modify the webapp => breaks DFSG 1 or 5. See the problem?
[...]
> It is who install the software (the webapp, etc.) who have to solve how to
> fulfill to the AGPLv3 license, no Debian.
Our users are one of our priorities. We must care about them, not
just dump this problem on their heads. If the software is free, fine.
If it is non-free for some uses, then users should be told.
> Anyway, you could send an 'official' and maybe public question to the FSF
> asking for advice. IMHO the Debian project must not reject any feedback about
> this subject.
FSF were asked about this as part of the AGPLv3 drafting process by
Francesco Poli. (As with the GPLv3, I was locked out by the webapp.)
FSF refused to answer, resolving the question with a blank response.
See http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?id=3584
Why would this be different if we simply asked again? Perhaps one of
the Affero advocates could try to get a reply?
In the absence of feedback, what should we do? I'm happy to take the
clarifications from project authors for their projects, but in general?
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: