Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are
>> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that
>> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot.
> If you connect to my SMTP server you will see a legal disclaimer (which I
> claim to be as valid as any that you may see in a .sig).
> Now in terms of granting rights, if my mail server contained AGPL code
> and this was displayed in the SMTP protocol then a user could connect
> to it and discover whether I was using code for which they could demand
> the source.
I disagree with your interpretation.
The AGPL states "prominently offer all users", displaying at protocol
level doesn't comply with either "prominently" nor with "all users"
(because only a few sysadmins will telnet to port 25.)
Such offer should be on SMTP *and* on the website offering this service.
(Would you consider it valid if the offer were included in HTTP headers?)
/me don't like AGPL, especially due to the way linked/combined code is
contaminated. I hate the way FSF made an exception for GPL-v3, and not for
"any compatible license". That's proprietary sh*t.