Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:28:59PM +0000, David Claughton wrote:
[...]
> You might want to, but AFAICT you would not be able to distribute
> the result if the user cannot be told how to get the source to the
> AGPL parts you included. That doesn't mean the original software
> isn't DFSG free, at least I don't see how it does.
If you wanted to modify the original software in such a way that it
becomes interactive but via protocols which don't provide a means to
send arbitrary notes, this license would prevent you from being able
to legally do so. If you wanted to incorporate small pieces of it
(say, an included library) into a new project which employs
protocols which don't provide a means to send arbitrary notes, this
license would prevent that too. It stifles innovation in ways the
earlier GPL versions did not.
I'm not a GPL apologist to begin with (as I already find it too
restrictive of end-user/distributor freedom for works I write), but
I have a hard time seeing how AGPL works can pass the dissident
test, at a minimum. The original GPL only requires you to distribute
source for applications which you are already distributing modified
binaries. The AGPL adds on a requirement to begin distributing
source for modified applications to which you allow connections over
the network in any way, even if you aren't distributing the software
itself.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); PGP(9E8DFF2E4F5995F8FEADDC5829ABF7441FB84657);
SMTP(fungi@yuggoth.org); IRC(fungi@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); ICQ(114362511);
AIM(dreadazathoth); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); FINGER(fungi@yuggoth.org);
MUD(fungi@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); }
Reply to: