Re: Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?
2008/9/15 Arc Riley <arcriley@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal <davi@leals.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only
>> the
>> binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code)
>> is a
>> rectriction?
>
> 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 [1]
> 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 [2] 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
Guidelines.
Greetings,
Miry
[1] http://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2004/03/21/charles_rules_of_argument/
[2] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=flashplugin-nonfree
Reply to: