Re: The Affero license
> Florian Weimer <email@example.com> writes:
> > Forced publication of in-house development considerably increases the
> > cost of running software.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This is only true when you adopt a "high falutin" concept of
> Make a tar file, put it on a web site, a five minute job. Advertise a
> bug-reporting and comments mailing address, and then a reflector on
> that list which says "sorry, but we don't have the time or resources
> to answer your email or even read it." Another five minutes.
You're not serious are you? Include "sanitize for undesirable comments",
re-architect to avoid an insecure hack, setup, house, and buy bandwidth
for http and mail servers for all these extra things because your core
service doesn't support those non-features.
Sure, all those things (except the last) are optional, but in reality they
mean "I can't use this supposedly-free software."
By the way, if I'm required to provide source via http, does that mean I'm
in violation when my HTTP server is down for a week because I've
exceeded my bandwidth limit, (assume my affero-based-non-http server is
still running because it has a different bandwidth agreement, or runs
on a different medium)?
Mark Rafn firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.dagon.net/>