[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Affero General Public License

<quote who="Marco d'Itri" date="Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:40PM +0100">
> vorlon@debian.org wrote:
> >No, it is not.  The requirement of source redistribution to third parties
> >that you are not distributing binaries to is incompatible with the DFSG.
> Which part of the DFSG, exactly?

The issue, as I understand it, comes down to one of two things. As
Steve phrased it, it would probably fail the Chinese dissident test
which, while not part of the DFSG, is seen as a useful tool by many
people on this list. I'd argue that that this doesn't come into play
here because the AGPL/GPLv3 only requires redistribution of code to
*users* but not to everyone.

The second argument is it fails the much more generic DFSG3 "must
allow modification" argument. Barring modification of the license and
copyright statement seems completely uncontroversial for obvious
reasons. Similarly, there is consensus that barring modification of
significant pieces of functionality seems to encroach users'
freedom. The GPL(2)(c) seems OK although there are a number of
interpretations why that is.

I think the core issue is the second one. Steve seems to think that
anything that does what AGPL is trying to do is non-free which seems
to imply he's making either the first argument or something else I
don't understand.

Many/most others have gone with the second argument and are saying
that the problem is primarily with the way the AGPL has done it. I'd
love to hear suggestions for a better way to do it.

If I'm forgetting something else, please let me know.


Benjamin Mako Hill

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: