tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/pkgtools/pkg_install/files/lib

Joerg Sonnenberger <> 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.

Attachment: pgptnoDhNKcwv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index