Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
* David Claughton <dave@eclecticdave.com> [091114 20:23]:
> AIUI you are allowed to run the program on your computer, assuming that
> the service cannot be connected to from a remote location (or you are
> the only person that can do so).
So I may not put that code into an smtp server, or a webserver or or or
without getting onerous requirements.
> You don't necessarily have to put the source on your own server -
> particularly if you are only distributing the program and not running it
> as a service yourself.
We all agree: If you do not want to run AGPL stuff, there is no problem.
> As I've suggested above, one solution is to
> distribute the source with the binaries and arrange for it to be
> downloadable from any server the binaries happen to be running on.
>
> Without a doubt this is a PITA, and might not be possible for some
> programs, but it doesn't mean that the license itself is non-free IMHO.
As I said: I do not see a difference between a license that does not
give me some right (or even tries to take away some rights copyright law
does not take away) and a license which theoretically grant it but puts
so many restrictions in it that one practically does not have it.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"
Niklaus Wirth
Reply to: