Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/15 Arc Riley <email@example.com>:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only
>> binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code)
>> is a
> I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of the license. If there
> are remaining questions, they should be asked.
> We've come to a point where our varying beliefs across a spectrum from
> anti-copyleft to strong copyleft are being voiced. This is what I have
> written earlier in this thread in degrading into personal opinions rather
> than arguing DFSG-freeness.
I agree. I think all the points of view have been expressed, and there
is no reason to keep repeating all of them over and over again 
> The issue of whether the AGPLv3 should be used is moot here. It is being
> used, it's popularity is growing, and Debian users are choosing to use
> AGPLv3 software regardless of whether it's packaged or how it's labeled.
> The only issue at hand is whether the Debian project is going to behave in a
> combative manner against these projects in labeling them as "non-free" or
> accept them as part of the body of free software.
That's not exactly a reason. Many Debian users are using
flashplugin-nonfree  and that doesn't make it free. non-free does
not have to mean bad or good, or that Debian is combative against it.
It just describes whether it fulfills or not the Debian Free Software