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

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

"Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <jordigh@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's so non-free about requiring the same network that's providing
> the interface to somehow and vaguely facilitate the conveying of the
> source?

It's an extra required cost on top of one's use of the software.

> Lawyers will have to decide, but the terms of the AGPL seem vague
> enough to allow a variety of creative solutions for distributing the
> source, including, btw, *all* of the same terms for distributing
> source that the GPL already provides.

The extra AGPL clause specifies exactly one set of terms for
distributing source: "access to the Corresponding Source from a
network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means
of facilitating copying of software."

Lawyers will have to decide?  Then please call us back once lawyers
have defused this lawyerbomb.

> Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here, unless
> you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two licenses
> are nearly identical, after all. I think "providing access to the
> source from a network server" could well be satisfied by having that
> server tell you, "check this other place, the source is right there"
> or "check your distribution, we already gave you the source."

There seems no good reason to link the AGPL and the GPL.  The AGPL's
extra clause is different and vague enough to raise questions which do
not affect the GPL - except that GPLv3 allows conversion to the AGPL.
The intentions of the AGPL are different, as explained in its
preamble, based around the absurd idea of ensured cooperation.

I think pointing to other people's servers may work, *as long as* your
deployment checks they are still serving source and goes offline if it
can't find the source.  I'm not sure whether that meets DFSG, though.

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

Reply to: