> >>>> No, it's plain AGPL v3. But he asks friendly not to remove some code > >>>> and then redistribute. > >>> > >>> He can ask, and god luck to him. His goal, though – to arbitrarily limit > >>> the distribution and concurrent execution of the program – is directly > >>> opposed to the goals of the Debian Project, which explicitly seeks to > >>> free Debian recipients from such restrictions. > >> > >> Where do you see that? Debian likes licenses like GPL and AGPL. > > > > Yes. Those licenses don't have arbitrary number-of-user limits on the > > work, as this work's copyright holder apparently wants to impose. > > I think what you say is not correct. GPL and AGPL does not say anything > about number-of-user limits in software. For so far I know they say > nothing about the software itself, only about changing and distributing it. > > As a developer, you are free to make limits. And as a user, you are free > to remove them. > > Or do I miss something?
The developers that work on Debian want to give the best possible user experience. As has been said before, if there is a way that the limitation can be patched out, it almost certainly eventually will be, and the patched version will be distributed by Debian. > >> It is *well known* that such licenses are not only for programms what > >> are free as in "free beer". True or not? > > > > Definitely correct. Selling free software is an essential part of > > supporting the development of more free software. > > > > The trick is to make sure the software *is* free while still selling it. > > Attempts to limit how many users can access the program concurrently > > are, if effective, restrictions that make the work non-free. > > As in beer. Not as in speach. > > Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? > https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from distributing isos compiled from the source. > >>> If the restriction is not legally enforcible, and the legally > >>> enforcible license grants all DFSG freedoms, then that license is at > >>> odds with the desire to restrict recipients. The expectation must be > >>> that we will either remove that restriction to benefit Debian > >>> recipients; or decide that the conflicting expressed wishes are too > >>> risky, and not include the work in Debian at all. > >> > >> It's not about risky, it's about "being nice". > > > > You can say “it's not about risky”, that doesn't negate the fact that it > > is risky. > > > > I'm pointing out the risk of mutually contradictory expressions from the > > copyright holder: expressing one thing via the chosen license, and > > expressing another by directly contradicting the license. > > No, by friendly asking something what's not contradicting the license. > Why in the license do you see what you say? Good luck friendly asking, but Debian will most likely friendly refuse, and even if Debian doesn't, someone else will. > > The copyright > > holder appears to want recipients not to actually exercise the freedoms > > directly granted in the license. > > > > That's a risk to Debian recipients – the copyright holder expresses a > > desire to act against the freedoms they've nominally granted in the > > license – and it's up to the Debian Project to decide whether that's a > > risk worth taking on. > > > >> It's like with imapsync. > > > > Maybe so. I don't know, because you haven't allowed us to compare the > > actual work and grant of license. > > > > It's not me you need to convince, though: I'm pointing out consequences > > of the conditions you are describing. > > > > So far we have only your description of this un-named copyright holder > > of an unspecified work. Until we see the work and the expression of what > > restrictions are imposed, without a screen of vagueness, we can only > > speak in generalities. > > > > Please, if you want a better discussion about this, present the actual > > work for us to inspect, complete with the exact text granting license to > > the recipient. > > I've asked the developer, he is thinking about it, and he've asked me in > the maintime not calling a name. > > And he's thinking about removing the 5-user-limit. > > This kind of software does not excist for Linux as open source. > > He is very experienced developer grown up in the commercial software > world. For him open source software is very new. > > To give an idea: only the manual is over 200 pages, this software was a > lot of work. How much work it was, and who the developer is is entirely irrelevant. And one more thing - it doesn't matter if you convince debian-legal that such a software licensing scheme is acceptable, because we don't make the decisions of what goes into the archive. The FTP masters decide that, and even then, they too are bound by the constitution. In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the non-free repository. Being "only" in non-free is nothing to be ashamed of. Many of the GNU manuals are there because they use the GFDL with invariant sections. Also, it's worth noting that most people in the Linux world are not as obsessed with freedom as Debian. :) You could try getting your package into Ubuntu if you haven't already; they might even give you the option to sell it in the Software Center, like they do with some games. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150330123316.56a4de2afcab33bc1bb4f...@bitmessage.ch
