Re: The Affero license
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 20:57, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 04:40:25PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
>
> > This seems to be a serious stretch of the actual wording of (2)(d). One
> > could also argue that any CD which includes GPL'd software is a
> > derivative work of that software. But arguing it doesn't make it true.
> > Let's talk about what the AGPL actually says, and not about how people
> > might misinterpret it. The way (2)(d) works is that the original author
> > writes suitable quine-like functionality, and people who modify the
> > software can't remove it. There's no need by people who merely run the
> > software to package anything up -- the software will be designed to do
> > this by itself.
>
> The problem with this is that it is very likely that people will want to
> use code for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended,
> and this proposed license does not appear to take this into account; there
> is no reason to suppose that what I create using someone's web app will be
> a web app to which this clause could reasonably apply, indeed there is
> every likelihood that it will go off in an entirely different direction
> (which is one of the wonderful things about free software), and that this
> clause would prevent it.
When you say, "every likelihood", I am not sure that I agree. In fact,
it seems rare to me that code from a web app would go into a non-web
app, although not impossible. Still, it seems that the clause could be
reworded to take this into account.
> This alone, IMHO, should be sufficient reason for this clause to die.
Or be rewritten.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
Reply to: