Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
- From: Ben Finney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:25:27 +1000
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <48b674fb.YGinxKn5zKz3e9eGemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Arc Riley" <email@example.com> writes:
> This thread has slipped into absurdity.
That largely seems to be the result of talking past each other.
> These fringe cases with the viewpoint that free software copyright
> holders are just biting at the bit to take people to court
> retroactively for short-term lack of compliance at no fault of the
> software modifier.
Whether such cases are "at no fault of the software modifier" is a
significant point of difference, as I see it.
The AGPL requires the software redistributor to make corresponding
source available to a remote user of the program. We have yet to see
any indication that failing to make such modifications available on
request is allowed by the license.
> If such a situation arose where a copyright holder did start
> engaging in "vengence litigation"
I don't see why you think "vengeance litigation" (whatever that may
be) is the consideration here.
We're trying to determine whether a work under the license is free,
and examining the effect that enforcement of the license terms would
have on the freedom of the work. Whether you consider such enforcement
likely or not seems irrelevant to this point.
\ “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the |
`\ best.” —Oscar Wilde |