* Mark Rafn: > Is a work free if some modifications are permitted, but would make > the resulting work non-free?
Consider a program which is licensed under the plain GPL. You incorporate parts of OpenSSL into the program, under the standard OpenSSL licenses. The licenses are not compatible, which means that the resulting work is not distributable at all (but you still can run the software for your own purposes). You could argue that this case is different because you could reimplement the same functionality under a compatible license, so this is slightly different. But the example still shows that some kinds of modification can be prevented in a DFSG-compliant manner. I agree that it's a corner case and it's quite strange to use the AGPL in such a manner. Maybe upstream can be convinced to use plain GPL instead. This also avoids the problem of GPL compatibility (the AGPL is incompatible even if the extra clause has no effect on the current code base). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
