On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only > the > binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is > a > rectriction? I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of the license. If there are remaining questions, they should be asked. We've come to a point where our varying beliefs across a spectrum from anti-copyleft to strong copyleft are being voiced. This is what I have written earlier in this thread in degrading into personal opinions rather than arguing DFSG-freeness. The issue of whether the AGPLv3 should be used is moot here. It is being used, it's popularity is growing, and Debian users are choosing to use AGPLv3 software regardless of whether it's packaged or how it's labeled. The only issue at hand is whether the Debian project is going to behave in a combative manner against these projects in labeling them as "non-free" or accept them as part of the body of free software.
