On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 20:39, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > OTOH, the Affero bit is staying AFAIK, and I hope that Debian can accept > > that. We had a discussion on proper interpretation of #3 brewing, and I > > would be happy for it to brew some more (although I'll have to take off > > my FSF hat, of course). > > By "is staying", do you mean that the decision is made and nobody can > say anything about it?
*no fsf hat, of course* If Debian decided that it couldn't accept it, and I had tried as hard as I could to change its collective mind (assuming my noncollective mind hadn't been changed in the process), I would push for its removal. But I bet Debian can accept it. > The reason I dislike the "Affero bit" is that it is a further > restriction on freedom. I stand for freedom. I like freedom. I > learned about freedom from RMS, but he has apparently decided that > freedom is no longer all it's cracked up to be. Is there any value in > complaining about the "Affero bit", or is the FSF just going to insist > on this? I want to discuss it, but not in this thread. Start a new one. > As with the FDL, this is very like an anti-flag burning rule. I > believe in the values that the American flag supposedly stands for > (freedom, principally), and accordingly I would not engage in flag > burning. Those who want to ban flag-burning want to take away freedom > in the name of preserving a symbol of freedom. Please don't turn everything into an FDL issue. The AGPL can be evaluated independently of the invariant section nonsense. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
