On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:44:52PM +0100, Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen wrote: > So an interactive AGPL program *must* have a prominent way of giving > information to the user. This breaks for any server where the return > format is restricted (web servers should not insert content on > delivered pages, so unless the HTTP headers are prominent enough, an > AGPL3 web server is in trouble) > > The problem here is still that "interaction" isn't defined. And probably > can't be without being either too narrow or too broad.
>From the previous discussion, I gather the FSF's interpretation is a broad one. As regards the AGPL web server and other similar hypotheticals, I think this would come down to user/community pressure: i.e. if someone chooses a licence that is impractical then either the software won't find many users, or the licensor will come under pressure to move to a better licence. That makes the AGPL a bad licence in some circumstances, but I'm not convinced it makes it non-free. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
