* Stefano Zacchiroli [130704 09:24]:
> I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
> will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the same
> kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
> software will have to face to uphold GPL (or equivalent) terms.
No, there is a really important difference. With GPL you only have to be
careful when you give binaries to anyone, that you also give the source.
This is a bit of a hassle, but worst case means that you cannot help
others with the software changes you have done (bad enough but worth the
hassle to have the source) if you miss some of the sources. But if the
sources may contain any passwords or other internal data you cannot/do
not want to share, so will likely the binary so that is no difference.
With AGPL you are no longer allowed to run the software in this case.
I do not see how a software restricting running a software can still
be called free.
Low quality software modifications are not the best. It would be far
nicer if anyone just wrote nice general frameworks for their specific
needs and submitted them upstream. But limiting the users freedom to
be able to do and finance that is absurd. If you are no longer allowed
to make some quick and dirty modifications to make our software work
for you, then in the sum it is no more free at all.
> For people who
> are fine with the copyleft approach (and of course not all of us are)
> AGPL shouldn't be particularly shocking.
Sorry, once I am no longer allowed to run some software on my computer
because I modified it to my needs, then it simply is not free. People
still calling that free is shocking for me indeed.
> In that sense, AGPL is just a
> new release of GPL that closes a long outstanding bug titled "provide a
> license port for the Software-as-a-Service era".
And adding DRM to the browser is just closing a long outstanding bug
titled "please cripple my system enough so that content providers will
take my money"?
Bernhard R. Link