Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-11-24 15:06:03.00 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As it was not a mistake, this bug is not serious, but the desire for > > some users to avoid unlimited download costs remains, so is it OK with > > you if I reopen this bug but downgrade it to wishlist? > > To be honest, I would prefer if you could keep license advocacy somewhere > else. Imagine BSD-license advocates filing bugs with each and every > GPL-licensed package to relicense under a BSD license. That does not > work.
I don't feel that's a comparable problem. It would be reasonable to track modBSD-license advocates requesting removal of the advertising clauses with wishlist bugs, wouldn't it? I probably wouldn't ordinarily open a new bug for such a discussion, but this one's here already now. > For the more material side of your problem: You are concerned about the > AGPL requiring you to make source available to users of network services > using AGPLed code. For each user, you will need some bandwidth for making > your service available and some bandwidth for meeting your source > requirements. Your bandwidth limits the number of users you can > accommodate, but that is true of any network service, whether you have the > additional AGPL obligation or not. (This is my personal take on this, > I do not have the mandate to speak for the ftp team here.) > > Personally (as a copyright-holder licensing code under AGPL), I believe > that providing a link to your project on one of the popular hosting sites > (Savannah, Alioth, Launchpad, SF) is ample offer [...] I thank you for your personal view (which will be useful for software where you are a licensor), but this is essentially the same anecdotal advocacy which has been covered in previous discussions about AGPLv3. The application download bandwidth costs tend to be disproportionately larger than the user service bandwith and - as far as I can tell - it is not generally accepted yet that providing a link to your project on someone else's hosting site is sufficient (note that this bug simply asks for such a statement from yocto-reader's copyright holders) and so disruption of the hosting site requires disruption of user service. If you know of general acceptance of hosting sites as sufficient, then I suspect many people would be interested to learn of it. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
