On 20/06/14 08:47, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Respectfully, this is only your own opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, but I
> myself fail to see why the AGPLv3 is a problem. And I don't understand
> why you wrote that "the AGPLv3 is not very friendly to downstream
> projects". IMO it is only unfriendly with proprietary SaaS, which isn't
> the concern of Debian, right?
There are two orthogonal license issues here:
1) some people consider the AGPL to be non-DFSG, or DFSG but with
awkward practical results, or otherwise undesirable;
2) BDB has moved from a license to a more restrictive license,
and that's awkward even if they're both Free
For (1), the AGPL is nowhere near as widely used as the GPL, and we
don't have community norms for how to interpret it and how to comply
with it. I don't intend my deployment of ikiwiki-hosting for myself,
friends and family to be "proprietary SaaS" but if I forget to upload my
modified source tarball, it probably counts? Or maybe pushing my changes
to a public git repo is sufficient? Or do I have to indicate to users
which version is currently in use, or share my modified conffiles too?
It isn't obvious.
For (2), it would probably also be a problem if glibc relicensed from
LGPL to GPL, or Expat relicensed from MIT to LGPL, or GNU readline
relicensed from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ or GPL-2: in all of those cases, the
old and new licenses are both Free, but there are things you could
previously do with it that aren't allowed any more.
S
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53a42ad3.4080...@debian.org
