On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 11:53:22PM -0500, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > I don't think that issue is a closed one. As you and others have > mentioned in other threads, the GPLv3 will probably have a Affero-type > clause.
The GPLv3 having such a clause has no relevance to its freeness. A non- free restriction doesn't become free because the FSF decided to use it. That said, the draft does not have such a clause; rather, it says something like "Affero-like clauses are not incompatible". That's unfortunate, and encourages people to do probably non-free things, but it's not non-free itself. > Several people, at least, have spoken up in favor of this sort > of clause being both in the spirit of the GPL and the DFSG. I've seen it said that its *goal* is to protect against behavior that is against the spirit of copyleft. Worthy goals don't make non-free things free. This means that we might be willing to accept a restriction that does this, if they get rid of the collateral damage, but nobody has yet offered an approach to this that does so. > Even if there was some sort of rough consensus on the AGPL in the past, > I think that we need to *at least* discuss this a bit more and and a bit > more widely before we risk writing off some large future subset of GPL > works as being non-free. It was just re-discussed recently, around the GPLv3 draft, I believe. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
