Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
* David Claughton <email@example.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.
Bernhard R. Link
"Never contain programs so few bugs, as when no debugging tools are available!"