3 ms·
Certain groups[1] have always tried to eradicate commercial software. AGPL is just the logical adaption to the current environment. Also, given that BSD and GP
by JoachimSchipper 16y ago
Certain groups[1] have always tried to eradicate commercial software. AGPL is just the logical adaption to the current environment.
Also, given that BSD and GPL advocates can debate about which is "more free" for hours, I don't think "free" is a very useful word in this kind of discussion.
[1] "It's called GNU/crazy!"
- bad_user 16y agoYes, but by going by the definition of both Open Source and Free Software, I don't think AGPL qualifies; that was my point. Going by the Free Software definition, which is a lot more relaxed about terms and simpler: (0) freedom to run the program, for any purpose (1) change it to make it do what you wish How about changing it into something that has an output for which I own copyright / redistribution rights, such that I can sell it? If the output of a program can be considered derived work of that program, than freedom (0) is bitch-slapped. And if redistribution is not involved, then freedoms (2) and (3) don't enter the picture; which is why AGPL is trying to redefine what redistribution means. It's a word-play and I don't know how this was Open Source certified, which makes me think that the process itself is broken (bias towards FSF maybe?).