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

Re: Affero General Public License

<quote who="Glenn Maynard" date="Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:25AM -0500">
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> > I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have
> > mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type
> > clause.
> The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness.  A
> non- free restriction doesn't become free because the FSF decided to
> use it.

I never suggested that this is the case. I suggested that we should
perhaps think a bit harder before we declare software (or some subset
of software) under the most popular free software license in existance
non-free than we do when we're only talking about some license that
almost nobody uses.

The stakes are higher. Our level of critical reflection should be too.


Benjamin Mako Hill

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: