Hi, Le 25/03/2015 18:30, Paul van der Vlis a écrit : > >> They're probably doing some crazy AGPL bits on top of more restrictively >> licensed bits; since they're the copyright holder, they can do that, but >> it may mean that no one else can actually use and/or distribute the >> code. > > No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code and > then redistribute. > IMHO, a friendly request for a donation would be more effective and less likely to get removed in a subsequent fork. The scheme you are suggesting for this software implies that it is free (as in speech) only because people have the ability to patch a certain feature out (take the desert island test to see why: https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest ). For practical reasons, I would not want to have a package in Debian that people need to recompile or pay or whatever other action to use. They get the binary on DVD, they install it, they use it. So, for me, free-as-speech implies free-as-in-beer. If it had to be written in the Social Contract to be clear, I would vote for such an amendment. I think that answers your initial question, at least as far as I am concerned. Kind regards, Thibaut.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature