Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
"Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> One's modification and distribution over a network of that software,
> let's be explicit. 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 don't know about others, but I am charged for data transfer. A
network interface typically transfers some kilobytes of interface. The
source code of that software is typically some megabytes. The
difference between kilo and mega is a significant increase to me. I
know internet access is expensive in England, but I suspect the cost
difference will be even larger for some other countries.
> What I mean is that "through some standard or customery means" seems
> vague enough to me be interpreted as I did, that all the network
> server has to do is tell you where to get the source, not that it
> directly has to provide the source over this network connection, and
> it's important to mention that all the same terms of the GPL for
> distributing source also apply to the AGPL except for the extra
It is not important to mention them because they are not causing any
problems *and* they are useless for satisfying the extra clause. They
are useless in deciding whether the AGPL's section 13 follows the DFSG.
Previously, I attempted to use them as examples of what "customary"
means in section 13, but was told "If section 6 distribution terms
were desired for section 13, it would have specified so in section
13." # Message-id:
> I mean, are you giving me "access to the Corresponding Source" if your
> network server tells me to check the media that came with my bluetooth
> device that's providing a network interface, and are you giving me the
> same access if your network server tells me to look at some other 3rd
> party network to look for the source? If it does, then I think the
> protests of the AGPL placing undue burdens on the software conveyors
> are unfounded.
> If "access to the Corresponding Source" means nothing less than that
> the network server must directly send me the source over the network,
> then I shall relent arguing that the AGPL satisfies the DFSG.
I don't believe that "look over there" is acceptable access to the
C.Source, but I could be wrong and would love better data on that.
> > There seems no good reason to link the AGPL and the GPL.
> I'm not sure what you mean. [...]
I mean that the flawed intentions of the AGPL's extra section do not
necessarily imply that the GPL is flawed.
> > The intentions of the AGPL are different, as explained in its
> > preamble, based around the absurd idea of ensured cooperation.
> Huh? It's absurd to ensure cooperation? Isn't this the whole point of copyleft?
Yes, it's absurd to ensure cooperation! The first point of the first
principle of cooperation is "voluntary".
Forced cooperation is not the point of copyleft. Copyleft merely
forbids uncooperative people from adding more restrictions that would
stop the willing from cooperating. It does not seek to force all
users into cooperation against their will.
I think Copyleft is like the Industrial and Provident Societies Act -
it's an enabler that stops our enemies doing bad things to us if we
want to cooperate. It doesn't force anyone to participate.
> > 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.
> So in case this is an unreasonable burden, the GPL *and* AGPL provide
> other ways to convey source, like CDs.
How would that satisfy section 13? A CD isn't a network server.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct