Just rounding off a few loose edges. Stopping for reasons explained near the end:-
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > MJ Ray wrote: > > For example, a PHPBB service page is about 20k, while PHPBB source is > > 2.19MiB. > You have a mighty uninteresting forum if people only look at a single > page. Kidding aside, if 10% of all users download the source [...] Actually, if many people only look at a single page, it often means that a forum contains stuff which is actually interesting to a much broader audience than its registered user community. I've been supporting web forums and contributing to forum software for over a decade and I think that's a common characteristic of useful forums. > [...] it is but one > amongst many abuse scenarios for such a service. Also, web space in the > region of a few MB is a commodity - it would be ~20 Euros/per Month for [...] It is one abuse scenario which the licence forbids guarding against, though. I don't believe it matters much how much it costs and ~20 Euros/per Month may be cheap to us, but severe to some other people - free software should be free from such use fees. > Well, I'd recommend pestering the FSF for such a statement (or the > reverse). They seem to be amenable to appending their FAQ. This has happened. One day they may even respond. [...] > No problem. Note that it also involves you writing software that > interests me, so I can look forward to that. :) Ha! I think the problem is that I need to write enough of the software to make the AGPL stick to it. Usually my contributions are small innovations or fixes and I imitate the original licence or (less now than in the past) try to disown the change. Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: > > 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? > > No. Loic Dachary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As Thomas Viehmann indicates, debian bugs (wishlist or otherwise) > should not be > used to request upstream license changes from one DFSG-free license to > another. OK, I won't reopen unless someone writes otherwise, but most of the bugs from #123813 to #123833 and other similar bugs scattered about the BTS are requesting exactly that upstream BSD license change from one DFSG-free license to another, so I'm unconvinced that it's wrong to track this here. (Those bugs are mostly severity "normal" too.) Best wishes, -- 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]
