On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This is not the case. You are not required by the AGPLv3 section 13 to > > ensure the code is made available to anyone unless you have modified the > > code *and* you're allowing remote users to use that modified version over > a > > network. Your own private use of the software, modified or not, does not > > activate AGPLv3 section 13. > > So you say that the "and/or" in above statement is only an "and". I > don't see how that reduces the non-freeness. What was proposed was that every single user of the software would be required to host, on their own server and at their own expense, or even over the same net access through which remote access to the software is provided, a copy of the source code for every piece of AGPLv3 licensed software they wanted to use. What I am continually having to re-iterate in this thread is that this only applies to those who are running modified copies of code which is not already available online, that a free VCS solution is suitable, and it you're only required to share the source code with people you've already opted to allow remote access to your modified version. If you believe this is non-free, then please present a definitive situation or set of conditions in which you believe the AGPLv3 license violates DFSG. > Please stop this "new wave" FUD. How many people had their own computer > when the GPL was made? How many people back then only used software > on other people systems without owning a copy of it? Where is there > anything new here except the attempt to limit people's right to run > their software for any purpose they see fit? The ability to use software for any purpose is not restricted by the AGPLv3, any use restriction would fail software freedom #0. The only additional requirement beyond the GPLv3 is that you allow remote users of your software the ability to obtain a copy of the source code. If you disagree, please expand on your statement. In regard to FUD, I am not here to convince any other project that they should use this license. We are using the AGPLv3, I have only stated some of our reasons for making that choice. Debian represents such a small, shrinking percentage of our target audience that DFSG'ness is not going to influence that decision. I honestly see no purpose in packaging PySoy for Debian given that we'll be maintaining a separate package for Ubuntu regardless of the outcome of this discussion. PySoy (and many web apps, etc) represents such a small, unimportant niche to the Debian project that our choice of license is not going to influence the DFSG. In evidence to this, it's been almost a year since the AGPLv3 was released with many projects upgrading to it, yet apparently to date none have been packaged for Debian. The only matters at hand is correcting misunderstandings of the license and debating whether the license qualifies as DFSG, something that has not been resolved yet. If your project is going to judge a FSF license as DFSG-nonfree it should not be based on misunderstanding. You should almost certainly have a lawyer in this discussion and have someone more knowledgable than myself (IANAL) on the AGPLv3 engaged in this debate.
