Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> writes: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 08:21:08PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: >> If someone has a problem with *using* software under AGPL3 but has no >> problem with software under GPL3, then I would like to hear from them >> and understand the objection. > > I see the restrictions for service providers similar to a "not for > profit" clause. This is different from the GPL -- which only restricts > who I can give (modified) software to, not how I use it. I see. It doesn't really say "not for profit", it just requires providing source to people that you let run the program remotely. I think many people view distributing a binary to run on someone else's computer and running a binary on my computer hooked up to their computer's kbd/mouse/display as a distinction without a difference. But I realize this is a matter of opinion about what's right, and arguing about it isn't going to be super useful - I do understand where you're coming from. So, the real questions are Do we as a group want to change our definition of ACCEPTABLE? If so, to what? Practically, I'd say someone running a service, making derivative works, and withholding source needs advice of counsel anyway, in which case they can change the ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES variable. People just using NetBSD systems don't have the issue you described.
Description: PGP signature