4 ms·

It is objectively true. AGPL does not meet the definition of free software, because it restricts the use of the software when modified. The FSF pretends this i

It is objectively true. AGPL does not meet the definition of free software, because it restricts the use of the software when modified. The FSF pretends this isn't true by pretending that some uses are actually redistribution. However, this is too clever by half. Redistribution has a well-settled meaning, and allowing interaction over a network—unless it involves downloading the software itself—does not meet that definition.

pabs3 1y ago
The extra network clause triggers on modification, not redistribution.
- torstenvl 1y ago
  [flagged]
jakelazaroff 1y ago
Let's grant your definition of "redistribution" for the sake of argument. How does the license restrict your use of any modified versions of the software? Like, what specifically are you forbidden from doing?
- torstenvl 1y ago
  Your questions seem to be based on unspoken assumptions. Are you under the impression that a restriction can only take the form of a blanket prohibition?
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    No assumptions here! You said that the AGPL "restricts the use of the software when modified", so I'm just asking specifically what the restrictions are.
    - torstenvl 1y ago
      No... you asked "Like, what specifically are you forbidden from doing?" HN is for intellectual curiosity. Not gaslighting ideological battles. Conditions on freedom are restrictions. Something doesn't have to be an outright prohibition to be an impingement on freedom. It's dishonest to pretend like anything short of a prohibition is unrestricted freedom.
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        Yes, the intellectually curious discussion I am trying to have is about how the AGPL allegedly restricts your usage of derivative works. In order to have that discussion, we need a specific example of such a restriction! You've evaded my request for one three times now, so the only conclusion at this point is that you can't come up with one because it just doesn't exist.

pabs3 1y ago

The extra network clause triggers on modification, not redistribution.

torstenvl 1y ago
[flagged]

jakelazaroff 1y ago

Let's grant your definition of "redistribution" for the sake of argument. How does the license restrict your use of any modified versions of the software? Like, what specifically are you forbidden from doing?

torstenvl 1y ago
Your questions seem to be based on unspoken assumptions. Are you under the impression that a restriction can only take the form of a blanket prohibition?
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  No assumptions here! You said that the AGPL "restricts the use of the software when modified", so I'm just asking specifically what the restrictions are.
  - torstenvl 1y ago
    No... you asked "Like, what specifically are you forbidden from doing?" HN is for intellectual curiosity. Not gaslighting ideological battles. Conditions on freedom are restrictions. Something doesn't have to be an outright prohibition to be an impingement on freedom. It's dishonest to pretend like anything short of a prohibition is unrestricted freedom.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      Yes, the intellectually curious discussion I am trying to have is about how the AGPL allegedly restricts your usage of derivative works. In order to have that discussion, we need a specific example of such a restriction! You've evaded my request for one three times now, so the only conclusion at this point is that you can't come up with one because it just doesn't exist.