Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
* David Claughton <dave@eclecticdave.com> [091113 21:42]:
> Now this could certainly involve more extensive modifications than you
> might otherwise want to do, and you might well decide it's not worth the
> effort. However I'm still not entirely convinced it makes the license
> non-free.
If the license makes running a locally modified version not worth the
efford, that is a very strong indication it is not free at all.
My biggest problem is still that the licence forbits sloppy code. Not
every modification is suitable for everybody. For example never having
passwords in your code or other details about your infrastructure you do
not want published is a sign of good code. Being required to implement
some configuration file handling to keep your changes out of the source
so those details are not published basicly means not having the right to
do quick and dirty modifications[2]. And without the right to do quick and
dirty modifications you cannot speak about a right to modify in my eyes
at all.
Let's take this to some extreme: What about software with a license that
forbids you running it unless you published your changes in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal?
I hope we all agree that at least that would be non-free. (Though I
guess some wil argue that there are enough journals, so that publishing
it in some journal that would have penguins on its website if the links
were not broken[1] would not be that big deal).
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
[1] hint most likely only understandable by mathematics
[2] Don't understand me wrong: If you extend stuff, it's of course
even only short-sighted egoistically thinking better to do it generic,
so you can get it upstream so you do not have to patch your source
every time a new upstream release is there. But that needs time, and if
you need a solution now, you should be able to do it now.
Reply to: