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

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

2008/9/1 Arc Riley <arcriley@gmail.com>:

>> 2) Spam everyone I interact with, saying the client I'm using and how
>> to get the full source code.
> The license does not say you must advertise, only that you "must prominently
> offer".  In your example of an IRC network, providing a source URL with CTCP
> VERSION requests more than sufficiently fufills this requirement.
>> 3) Be able to notify servers in the network on how to be able to get
>> that source code too.
> It's common on IRC for servers to grab CTCP VERSION requests as well.  Most
> network protocols have a mechanism similar to this, including XMPP.  Since,
> to activate the AGPLv3 section 13, the remote user must already be
> interacting with your software, a query/response pair is more than
> reasonable.

Fair enough. I wonder if a similar solution can be found for all the
possible cases of use, but you're right in this,

>> 4c) Through a public server, having to identify myself (thus, I
>> wouldn't be able to remain anonymous)
> Current free VCS solutions do not require you to identify yourself with your
> legal identity, many people publish code under an alias/monkier, and the
> license requires nothing to the contrary.  Of course I've said this already.

Of course, but they'll have your IP, which is (at least in my country)
personal information. In any case it is enough for someone to be able
to find you, so you won't be really anonymous. Think about China, for

>> 5) Have legal problems in countries in which my program might not be
>> legal, by providing having to provide it to people there, as I might
>> be interacting with people in that country. Example: My 3D irc has
>> support for encrypted connections, I might be chatting with people
>> from other countries in which encryption might be forbidden. License
>> is forcing me to commit a crime in that country.
> This is no different from with the GPL.  You just can't work on the
> cryptographic parts of the code, and are thus not in a requirement to
> distribute those parts.  Note that the Corresponding Source is every
> dependency your software uses, the GPL doesn't require you to distribute
> every dependency, only the parts you've modified.  The AGPLv3 is no
> different.

Maybe I haven't explained myself properly. In my country,
cryptographic code is legal. Lets say for example that in France it
isn't. I can choose not to distribute my code in France, but I cannot
make my program not interact with French people until I have already
interacted with them. I see quite an important difference here.

> Replying to you seems to be moot, however, since it doesn't appear that
> you're reading replies, only continuing to repeat your beliefs untainted by
> dialog/debate.  We've been over all of this in this thread.

I am reading replies, and I acknowledge that your opinion is different
than mine. I understand that you believe that your answers are valid
to solve these problems, while I don't believe they are. In what I am
concerned, some of my problems with it are not solved yet. I have read
and understood your replies, and I'm really grateful for those. I
guess you are not meaning that me not agreeing with you is because I'm
ignoring you or anything, because it's not like that. We probably have
different points of view, and it doesn't seem likely that after this
discussion any of them are gonna change. That doesn't make me a bad
person. I respect your point of view, honest. In any case, it's not me
who have to decide, but the ftpmasters, I am just giving my opinion
here and talking just for myself.


Reply to: