Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
"Arc Riley" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> > "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.
> It has already been made clear that you're not required to distribute the
> modified source on the same network connection as the remote interaction.
It has not. No-one has a statement from the FSF along the lines of
the GPL FAQ about this. All we have is that some AGPL advocates don't
require it for their software (for which I thank them).
Indeed, one clear failure by the FSF to clarify this has been posted
which scares me, in a similar way to the utter bunfight that is
Creative Commons's refusal to clarify their non-commercial term.
So how about making it clear? Then this concern is much reduced.
> That those debating against the AGPLv3 on this thread have such a weak case
> that they must argue that the cost to upload the source is burdomsome, given
> the existing cost associated with hosting that software for remote
> interaction and the cost of hardware to host it on, demonstrates to me that
> this debate is over.
This doesn't surprise me: Affero advocates have been suggesting that
"this debate is over" since forever. Never mind that it seems to be
costing hosting-user freedoms to run the software, non-hosting-users
are assumed to be more important for inexplicable reasons, so "debate
I think that those advocating the AGPLv3 are now using some
cock-and-bull megabytes-don't-cost-more-than-kilobytes argument is a
> > Yes, it's absurd to ensure cooperation! The first point of the first
> > principle of cooperation is "voluntary".
> > http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html
> Nobody is being forced to use the software, just as nobody is forced to
> become a member of a cooperative. Participation remains is voluntary.
Sure, but the linking of running and distribution means we do not have
the same freedom to run the software for any purpose as with other
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct