"Arc Riley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What AGPL does, is trying to limit how a program is allowed to > > run. That is an very important difference [from the GPL]. > > 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.
Which *is* a restriction imposed by the AGPL: one may only run the program under certain conditions. The GPL places no such restriction on running the program. That's the difference Bernhard pointed out. > 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. The above points are facts about the license terms. Please don't try to paint factual arguments as "personal opinions". > Given that we're talking about an official FSF license, written and > supported by SFLC lawyers This is an appeal to authority: who drafted the license terms, and who has okayed them, doesn't have any impact on the facts about the effects of the license terms on a work. We're trying to determine the effect of the license terms when applied to a work, regardless of who wrote the license. > I think the AGPLv3 warrants a bit more involved debate than > continually repeating personal opinions. Indeed. -- \ “[Entrenched media corporations will] maintain the status quo, | `\ or die trying. Either is better than actually WORKING for a | _o__) living.” —ringsnake.livejournal.com, 2007-11-12 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
