[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL2 + required to have the place to get the recent version

I mean, that's not entirely relevant in the context of this discussion. That file tells users not to use the software if they don't agree to the license, but section 9 of both the GPL and AGPL 3.0 say that a license is not required to receive and run a copy of the program, and copyright does not limit use in the first place. Actually, even the SSPL contains that clause. So the text in question is unambiguously inconsistent with all of those licenses.

The debate over whether the limitations on using AGPL or SSPL software in a SaaS product in certain ways without making your own source available meet various free software definitions is not really relevant to the discussion of this particular text.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 17:11 Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:00:04 -0500 Daniel Hakimi wrote:

> But even the AGPL does not restrict *use*.

I personally think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 *does* restrict use.

That's one of the main [reasons] why I think the AfferoGPL does *not*
meet the DFSG. The Debian FTP Masters don't agree with me,
unfortunately, but I still believe AfferoGPL-licensed works should not
have entered (or continue entering) Debian main...

[reasons]: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00233.html>

 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Reply to: