[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote [quoting someone without attribution]: > > The AGPL utilises copyright's policing of the private domain to force > > disclosure of otherwise private source code. > > This is a statement that I take issue with. The AGPL is a license, like > any other. It allows anyone access to the software, provided they are > willing to agree to the terms and conditions. In this case, those terms > require the source code, modified or not, to retain the same free > distribution under which it was downloaded and used.
The main difference is that any consequential costs of distribution under the AGPL have to be borne by the site owner. This means AGPL'd software doesn't necessarily come with the freedom to adapt the software to a user's needs. That, and the falsehood in the Preamble about "ensure cooperation" (you can't - cooperation must be voluntary by definition... "ensured cooperation" is actually control), is reason enough for me to reject AGPL. [...] > When a company takes open source software and uses it as a closed web > service, they are effectively making it proprietary. I disagree completely. That would mean when I run GNU Emacs on my system, I'm "effectively making it proprietary". I'm not. It's still free software, even if I'm just a user and not a distributor. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
