On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:41:55AM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > <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. I think that, in practice, it's very difficult for a license to do what the AGPL attempts to do without carrying with it a number of unacceptable side effects. I won't say it's impossible, I just don't see (at this point) how it could be done. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature