* Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070404 01:09]: > Calling Affero code proprietary is a pretty big stretch. Yes, there's a > clause in there which is a restriction on modification - so it's not > entirely free. But you still have to release the source to > modifications, source follows the binary - all that GPL goodness, > because the Affero license is based on the GPL.
While proprietary might not be the proper term using the dictionary meaning of proprietary, it's often used in the meaning "more evil than I want to deal with". And in that meaning it fits. Forcing users to surrender their right to run for their right to modify, is nothing I'd consider less free, it's not free at all. > And, from a practical point of view, there's hardly any code under the > Affero. Proprietary software companies are not going to relicense under > the Affero in order to link with GPLed code - because the Affero doesn't > let them keep their code secret. So, imposing the condition that everyone is allowed to make the code non-free is OK, because it would be a form of non-free that currently no proprietary software companies has any use for? I don't choose my licenses to destroy proprietary software companies, but to keep my code free. > Some of your other points were good, but this one is really not going to > be a problem in practice. It's an obvious and large problem in theory. Free software is to an large part idealism. Idealism and big problems in the theory don't fit well together. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
