Re: Alternatives to the Affero General Public License
** Mark Rafn ::
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Gregor Richards wrote:
> > The term "Free Software" is open to interpretation, the DFSG is
> > not the be-all-end-all of what is and isn't "Free".
> True. This is why I use and support Debian - it's the closest
> thing I can find to my personal definition of freedom.
<AOL>Me too</AOL>. And the process of discovering what is and what
is not DFSG-free is another thing that attracts me to Debian.
> > After all, according to www.gnu.org , the Affero General Public
> > License is "Free Software," and I should think that history
> > would give them precedence in making such a decision.
> Well, no. debian-legal is the place that Debian discusses their
> definition. Nobody has precedence in defining our terms.
Actually, the ftp-masters and other constituted Debian authorities
have precedence, and debian-legal is only their consulting body. But
the process and the discussions on d-l are a beautifully democratic
part of this process, and it's so good that actually the ftpmasters
often (always?) follow the d-l consensus.
> If FSF acceptance is your goal, can you not just use the Affero
> > In response to "Unworkable, but you give an out in the next
> > section, so this clause will never be used." How is this
> > unworkable? Certainly many, even most, protocols this would
> > apply to have this support.
> I mean that it's a requirement that is obviously non-free as there
> are many applications for which it would be impossible. It cannot
> be a requirement of free software. In your example, it's not
> required, so it's not worth spending much time on.
It would constitute unacceptable restrictions on the production of
derivative works, possibly combined with discrimination agains
fields of endeavour.