Re: issues with the AGPL
Greg Harris <glharris@panix.com> wrote: [...]
> Here's what I think needs to be addressed if anyone wants to make
> actual progress on this subject:
>
> - What exactly is it that someone wants to do that they are prevented
> from doing by the terms of the AGPL?
Use it on their website without being liable for the cost of download
for code that they have not written or modified.
This is the flip-side of the freedom to distribute when you wish and
the AGPL problem is a consequence of the confusion over whether you
are compelled to distribute the whole thing or only your changes.
Also, whether that distribution must be to everyone who has any sort
of access to it, only to users who are allowed to log in (or similar),
or only "when you wish" (which is a phrase RMS used to use when
explaining the four freedoms - I wonder if he still does).
> - What other license would be required to allow them to implement a
> derived work, offer it to public users, and refuse to share their
> changes? (I'm aware that's a loaded phrasing, but that is the
> hypothetical problem as seen by those who choose this license.)
It's not only a loaded phrasing, but I don't understand it. Surely
it's not suggesting that we're only objecting to the AGPL because it's
the AGPL and not some other licence? That's not it at all.
> - Is this discussion really about nothing more than what
> "distribution" means in the context of a public-facing server-based
> application?
Mostly but not exactly: I think it's also about who is a user in the
context of a private server-based application on a public-visible
server.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: