* Joerg Jaspert: >> 3) It might contaminate unrelated software. > > We aren't sure that this is much different to the "normal" GPL. It is a > copyleft license after all. So unless someone declares the GPL non-free > thanks to that, we disagree with applying it to the AGPL.
I think the difference is that when you write a proxy for a AGPLed network service, you have to look at the licence very closely. If you don't distribute things, it's a departure from FLOSS licensing's no-nonsense approach. However, I'm not sure if it's Debian job to advocate against the AGPL for that reason. How do we ensure that a user who has installed AGPLed works from a stable release complies with the license? One practical way to ensure this is to require that the work itself provides means to comply with the section 13 requirements. On the other hand, the Mozilla Public License raises similar difficulties. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
