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

Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?

2008/9/10 Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>:
> "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <jordigh@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2008/9/10 Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>:
>> > "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <jordigh@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of
>> >> providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in
>> >> the first place.
> […]
>> I have been interpreting the AGPL […] that these additional costs
>> can be transferred onto third parties for whom the cost is probably
>> negligible
> That's a different argument to your earlier message.
> You can't argue both "zero additional costs" *and* "non-zero
> additional costs which are negligible for some parties in some
> circumstances". Which is it?

I suppose debian-legal is the proper place to pick language apart.

The two you quote above, one says "no greater", the other says
"negligible". My point still is that in most cases if you can afford
to provide an interface over a network, you can also afford to provide
source over a network, and for the cases when you can't afford source,
there are other ways you can satisfy clause 13, namely, the usual
channels of distribution that the GPL provides, plus a trivial network
server to indicate those other ways.

In LaTeX,
\operatorname{cost} \leq \epsilon \forall \operatorname{cost} \in A
where $A$ is the set of all costs associated with transferring AGPLed source.

I have never argued for zero cost. Smaller than epsilon doesn't mean
zero (unless it's nonnegative and smaller than every epsilon and we're
working with a standard model of the real numbers, but I digress).

And I'm trying to be funny, btw, not necessarily a smart (or dumb)
ass. :-) Please forgive me if I failed.  Being funny, that is.

- Jordi G. H.

Reply to: