29 Jan
2008
29 Jan
'08
10:42 a.m.
Dave Robillard wrote:
This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the
entire purpose of
Free Software, and the GPL. It's the very first 'freedom' (out of four)
in the definition of Free Software, which was written by the same person
as the GPL, for the same reasons.
Okay. Now let me add more fuel to this useless discussion [1]:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
Note, that this license (Affero GPL) seems to be considered a "free,
copyleft license" by FSF itself.
Still, it restricts the actual *use* (and not just *distribution*) of
covered software. The exact type of restriction is different from one in
LinuxSampler license, but that's because it tries to solve a different
problem.
LinuxSampler license is intended to prevent hardware makers from
profiting off the LS project by making it a part of hardware box, AGPL
is intended to prevent Web companies from profiting (in some or other
way) off projects by combining it with other code and running it on a
public server.
Similarities:
- intention of prevention of uncooperative behaviour
- restriction of use
- encourages dual-licensing to companies that *really* want to use a
project in closed source derivatives
- based on GPL
Differences:
- LS bans: commercial && hardware
- AGPL bans: derived works && closed-source modifications && use on
network servers
Krzysztof
[1] Hopefully "fuel for thinking", not "fuel for name-calling". YMMV.