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

Re: Affero General Public License

"Benj. Mako Hill" <mako@debian.org>
> <quote who=3D\"Glenn Maynard\" date=3D\"Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:14:25AM -0500\">
> > 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.

I don't think one can honestly call GPLv3 "the most popular free software
licence in existance" because it's not in existance yet and the current
draft and BROKEN drafting process are getting a lot of criticism.

(The process should be changed to be
 * open/accessible to all, but especially software creators
 * transparent and public with full audit trails
 * more international

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: