On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM, David Martínez Martí < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with this license is, that anyone that tries to use and/or > modify it must distribute it to third parties. I don't think that can be > free. 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. The purpose of the AGPLv3 is the GPL (v2 or v3) is not sufficient to guarentee the freedoms we value in software given the new wave of network-based software where the user would never receive a copy in most cases. > But, ok, suposse that's not a problem. The next problem is that this > license was written with a scenario in mind (Internet + VCS + money for > hosting) . It doesn't was desinged to cover all posible cases. Only one is > covered. There's a more than sufficient number of free VCS services available that money is not required for code hosting. The web-based GUIs of those services are simple enough that anyone who's clueful enough to modify the software is going to be competent enough to create a free Gna!, Savannah, or even a Google account. In many cases pushing it as a branch on the software project's own VCS, as any project using the AGPLv3 likely wants to make merging changes as simple as possible. On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Christofer C. Bell < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 3) The user cannot remain anonymous. > In the case of point #3 that you're making here, are you saying that the > AGPLv3 fails the dissident test? > I've already replied to Miriam's concern about anonymous posting of code. To reiterate: - you are only required to distribute modified code to those you're permitting remote access to use your version, - you are not required to permit anyone remote access, thus able to keep your usage of the software hidden, and - you have no further requirement to identify yourself as aa contributor/editor than you do with the GPLv3 Thus, I pose if the AGPLv3 fails the dissonant test, so does the GPLv3. If you disagree, please propose a situation in which it may not and specify the license text which causes this to be so.
