On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, there is an very important difference. The GPL ensures that everyone > is allowed all the things they would be if there was no license at all. That is not true. There are countless public domain works which the source code is not available, thus the GPL ensures *more* than if there was no license at all. >From reading your email, it sounds like you would also believe that requiring the distribution of source code when object code is distributed is "limiting" how the software is distributed, which would fail DFSG #1. Others would argue that the GPL ensures that DFSG #2 will continue to be met by future package contributors and forks. > What AGPL does, is trying to limit how a program is allowed to run. That > is an very important difference. The AGPLv3 does not limit how a program is allowed to run, it only requires that modified source code is made available to those you're allowing to use that software over a network. DFSG #2, in making source code available, seems to cover this, and there does not seem to be a DFSG against requiring it's distribution to remote users vs only those the software is distributed to. If you feel otherwise then please point out the DFSG line item which discriminates against this license. All you've included in your emails is your own personal opinions over the freeness of the AGPLv3. With all due respect, this thread is regarding whether the AGPLv3 complies with the DFSG, not a straw poll on people's personal feelings about it. Given that we're talking about an official FSF license, written and supported by SFLC lawyers, explicitally GPLv3 compatible, drafted and approved through a lengthy public process that included input from the Debian project, and adopted by many free software projects, I think the AGPLv3 warrants a bit more involved debate than continually repeating personal opinions.
