On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:53:35 +0000 Gervase Markham wrote: [about the "don't remove get_source feature"] > - The requirement to not remove certain particular code is probably > non-free;
I don't think it's forbidding to remove the code: it's merely forbidding to drop a feature. You could reimplement it in a better (or even worse) way, but you must support it. Anyway I agree it's non-free. Suppose for example that my derivative work is intended for use on an embedded system with very limited hardware resources. I could fail to comply with my constraints, due to this prohibition to drop a functionality (in the meanwhile, perhaps, I'm distributing my derivative work separately, through my website, in both source and binary forms and even through Debian archives, since I'm a DD myself and have packaged my derivative work for Debian! Thus I'm a very good guy!). Obviously, this is a thoroughly hypothetical example (I don't write programs for embedded systems, IANADD, and, above all things, I wouldn't create derivative works of AGPL'd programs!) > > - The general requirement to make code available for download could be > asserted without the "don't remove code X" clause; Yes, though I don't think such clauses could be made DFSG-free... :( > > - Specifying HTTP is not future-proof, and may not be appropriate for > some programs or environments; Definitely agreed. > > - What happens if the program interacts with other programs over a > network? How do you define "interacting with a user"? Who knows? I agree that this is very gray and unclear. -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgproudW5yfWV.pgp
Description: PGP signature