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

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

"Arc Riley" <arcriley@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Bernhard R. Link <brlink@debian.org> wrote:
> > What AGPL does, is trying to limit how a program is allowed to
> > run. That is an very important difference [from the GPL].
> The AGPLv3 does not limit how a program is allowed to run, it only
> requires that modified source code is made available to those you're
> allowing to use that software over a network.

Which *is* a restriction imposed by the AGPL: one may only run the
program under certain conditions. The GPL places no such restriction
on running the program. That's the difference Bernhard pointed out.

> DFSG #2, in making source code available, seems to cover this, and
> there does not seem to be a DFSG against requiring it's distribution
> to remote users vs only those the software is distributed to. If you
> feel otherwise then please point out the DFSG line item which
> discriminates against this license.
> All you've included in your emails is your own personal opinions
> over the freeness of the AGPLv3.

The above points are facts about the license terms. Please don't try
to paint factual arguments as "personal opinions".

> Given that we're talking about an official FSF license, written and
> supported by SFLC lawyers

This is an appeal to authority: who drafted the license terms, and who
has okayed them, doesn't have any impact on the facts about the
effects of the license terms on a work. We're trying to determine the
effect of the license terms when applied to a work, regardless of who
wrote the license.

> I think the AGPLv3 warrants a bit more involved debate than
> continually repeating personal opinions.


 \      “[Entrenched media corporations will] maintain the status quo, |
  `\       or die trying. Either is better than actually WORKING for a |
_o__)                  living.” —ringsnake.livejournal.com, 2007-11-12 |
Ben Finney

Reply to: