On 2008-11-24 15:06:03.00 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > yocto-reader has been accepted into Debian by the FTP team. As this has > > not been an "accident", this means that the working opinion of the FTP > > team is that AGPL meets the DFSG criteria. > > As such, this bug is invalid until the FTP team decision is reversed. > > > > In order to alleviate doubts you may have about the status of the AGPL, > > Miriam Ruiz has filed #495721 in order to get a rationale for said decision. > > Before the above message, there was no evidence that yocto-reader > being accepted was not a mistake, so the bug report was valid. > > 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. 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 of "an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server a no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software". Sure, they might close down or remove your project so you'll be in need of a new hosting opportunity, but that is not unlike your sever experiencing a hard disk failure. It is "a network server" and not "the same network server" and, while this is not legal advice, I fully expect courts to not care whether that access is provided using a server you own, you rent, or a site that specializes on offering distribution services. Kind regards T. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
