GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG

[Bill Allombert-3]

Dear developers,

I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.

Asking for seconds.

- - - - - - -
General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:

The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guideline.
- - - - - - -

RATIONALE (to be amended if necessary):

1. The GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) is essentially the GNU General
Public License with the following additional clause reproduced below.
See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl.html for the full text
of the license.
""
  13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
 
  Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
  Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting
  with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such
  interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your
  version
  by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no
  charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of
  software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for
  any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is
  incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
   
    Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to
  link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the
  GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the
  resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part
  which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain
  governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
""

2. This clause is incompatible with section 3. of the Debian Free Software
Guideline:

2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.  
    Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software can require you to
    write a substantial amount of extra code to comply with this clause.

2.2 This clause forces the developer modifying the software to incur the cost
    of providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server
    as long as at least one person is using the software and this for
    all published modifications, even long after the developer stopped using
    the software.

3. This clause is incompatible with section 6. of the Debian Free Software
   Guideline.

3.1 This clause does not allow you to modify the software to perform tasks
    where complying with it is not technically feasible.

Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@...>

Imagine a large red swirl here.

[Russ Allbery-2]

Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@...> writes:

> - - - - - - -
> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>
> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
> Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guideline.
> - - - - - - -

What is the current ftpmaster ruling on this license?  Possibly the same
question in other words: why are you proposing this as a GR, when that's
not normally how license evaluation is done?

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)-3]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 18-03-2009 20:55, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@...> writes:
>
>> - - - - - - -
>> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>>
>> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
>> Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guideline.
>> - - - - - - -
>
> What is the current ftpmaster ruling on this license?  Possibly the same
> question in other words: why are you proposing this as a GR, when that's
> not normally how license evaluation is done?

        FTP Master team had announced their position on debian-legal:

| The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
| go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems).
Quoted from: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00097.html


Kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknBrhAACgkQCjAO0JDlykZKQgCfW8i2d8DfTiDaQI15t96j9ViK
Pb0AnRoCt/IYS0cB9BK9R1vZBdxh8I5w
=q+O6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

"Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <faw@...> writes:
> On 18-03-2009 20:55, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@...> writes:

>>> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:

>>> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU
>>> Affero Public License are not free according to the Debian Free
>>> Software Guideline.

>> What is the current ftpmaster ruling on this license?  Possibly the
>> same question in other words: why are you proposing this as a GR, when
>> that's not normally how license evaluation is done?
>
> FTP Master team had announced their position on debian-legal:
>
> | The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
> | go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems).
> Quoted from: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00097.html

Ah, so this is actually a delegate override.

Bill, could you please change the GR to explicitly say that it's
overriding a delegate decision so that it's clear in its implications and
motivation?

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Bill Allombert-3]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 07:32:48PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bill, could you please change the GR to explicitly say that it's
> overriding a delegate decision so that it's clear in its implications and
> motivation?

I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3.
The purpose of this GR is to take a public stance whether or not the
AGPL meet DFSG.

I am pretty confident that the FTP master will comply with the outcome
of such determination, and I think it would be uselessly confrontational
to draft it as overriding them.

My view is that the FTP masters are delegated the power to decide
which software belong in the archive at any given time. They are also
required to make this determination in a limited timeframe and with
limited resource than might be insufficient for the most complex issues.
As long as this proposal is not calling explicitely for packages
such-and-such to be moved in or out of the archive, it does not
override them.

Of course, had the FTP master rejected packages under the AGPL from the
archive, I would not have bothered with a GR. However I would like this
GR to be considered independently of the FTP master resolution. They are
not the target, the AGPL is.

(For those of you who believe in Montesquieu separation of powers, the FTP
masters delegated power is executive while a GR under 4.1.5 is legislative.
For the others, thanks for reading so far.)

Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@...> (Please CC me)

Imagine a large red swirl here.

[Russ Allbery-2]

Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@...> writes:

> I proposed my resolution explicitly under 4.1.5, not under 4.1.3.  The
> purpose of this GR is to take a public stance whether or not the AGPL
> meet DFSG.
>
> I am pretty confident that the FTP master will comply with the outcome
> of such determination, and I think it would be uselessly confrontational
> to draft it as overriding them.

I believe that you're mistaken in your belief that it's less
confrontational to override their decision without saying so.  However, I
will defer to the FTP team; if they see this distinction and agree with
it, I withdraw my objection.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Joerg Jaspert]

> Of course, had the FTP master rejected packages under the AGPL from the
> archive, I would not have bothered with a GR. However I would like this
> GR to be considered independently of the FTP master resolution. They are
> not the target, the AGPL is.

It is not seperate. You do want to override a decision from us, which is
that the AGPL is fine for packages in our archive. You do want Debian to
decide that this is not true and the AGPL is not ok.

Fine, have it, if you find seconders, but clearly name it after what it
is please.


--
bye, Joerg
Some NM:
>A developer contacts you and asks you to met for a keysign. What is
>your response and why?
Do you like beer? When do we meet? [...]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.

Please make clear what is part of the proposal and what is not.


Kurt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[MJ Ray-2]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@...> wrote:
> - - - - - - -
> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>
> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
> Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guideline.
> - - - - - - -

I second the above Resolution, although I note it is missing the world
"General" before "Public".  My personal rationale is three-fold:

firstly, the uncertainty about whether we have to ensure availability
of the whole software or only our modifications (in other words,
whether our app should go offline if savannah, debian or whatever
upstream hosting service goes offline to our users) could be a
significant cost of use (this is broadly Bill Allombert's point 2.2);

secondly, the AGPL contradicts the freedom to distribute "when you
wish" which I always thought was a fundamental part of free software.
It has often been mentioned by RMS and others, in speeches such as
http://fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html
and some forced-publication licences (such as Reciprocal Public License)
have been listed on
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense

finally, the AGPL is grounded in the self-contradicting idea of being
"specifically designed to ensure cooperation" as described in its
preamble (which also differs from the GNU GPL).  I believe cooperation
is necessarily voluntary (and I am not alone in that - see
http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html#1) and that "ensured
cooperation" is coercion, not freedom.  This is broadly in line with
debian's constitutional idea that "A person who does not want to do a
task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do
it."

I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.

Regards,
- --
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFJx3v4mUY5euFC5vQRAq4PAKCAILfH4vqC9mNfZEisA89K1bOtjQCgmKeh
Z+cEKLJLzYnqDSMKBXZuXY8=
=7dWJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Bill Allombert-3]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:09:39PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@...> wrote:
> > - - - - - - -
> > General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
> >
> > The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
> > Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guideline.
> > - - - - - - -
>
> I second the above Resolution, although I note it is missing the world
> "General" before "Public".  My personal rationale is three-fold:

Thanks!

I like to say that I am in the process of improving the wording of this GR,
to address issues raised on this list.

In particular, I am considering making the rationale part of the GR text
(to make it a position statement from the project), but we would need more
discussion on this topic so we can agree on a rationale.

Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@...>

Imagine a large red swirl here.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:

> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.

I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
effects.  I encourage all DDs to not second it until it's been fixed, even
if you agree with the substance.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Steve McIntyre]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:31:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
>
>> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>
>I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
>stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
>effects.  I encourage all DDs to not second it until it's been fixed, even
>if you agree with the substance.

+1

--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@...
Google-bait:       http://www.debian.org/CD/free-linux-cd
  Debian does NOT ship free CDs. Please do NOT contact the mailing
  lists asking us to send them to you.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[MJ Ray-2]

Russ Allbery <rra@...> wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
> > I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>
> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
> effects.  I encourage all DDs to not second it until it's been fixed, even
> if you agree with the substance.

Did the delegates decide this particular matter or was Bug #495721
merely a summary of current practice?  The statement there seemed
incomplete in significant ways.

Also, I think we should let the secretary to decide if a GR proposal
modifies some foundation document, overrides a delegate decision, or
requires amendment to be valid, rather than withholding seconds. I'm
not that great at bureaucracy, so I think it's better that only the
secretary decides the rules, rather than having every DD try to use
the rule book as a weapon.

Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Luk Claes]

MJ Ray wrote:

> Russ Allbery <rra@...> wrote:
>> MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
>>> I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
>> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
>> effects.  I encourage all DDs to not second it until it's been fixed, even
>> if you agree with the substance.
>
> Did the delegates decide this particular matter or was Bug #495721
> merely a summary of current practice?  The statement there seemed
> incomplete in significant ways.

Yes, they did.

> Also, I think we should let the secretary to decide if a GR proposal
> modifies some foundation document, overrides a delegate decision, or
> requires amendment to be valid, rather than withholding seconds. I'm
> not that great at bureaucracy, so I think it's better that only the
> secretary decides the rules, rather than having every DD try to use
> the rule book as a weapon.

I think it's wrong to leave the decision on whether a GR proposal
modifies a foundation document to the secretary. I do think it's a good
idea to request withholding seconds if anything is unclear.

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Russ Allbery-2]

MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:

> Did the delegates decide this particular matter or was Bug #495721
> merely a summary of current practice?  The statement there seemed
> incomplete in significant ways.

The ftpmaster statement about the AGPL was remarkably explicit.

    recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked
    about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.

    The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
    go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems).

I'm not sure what requirements you have, but I have a hard time imagining
much done in the project that is more obviously a delegate decision.

> Also, I think we should let the secretary to decide if a GR proposal
> modifies some foundation document, overrides a delegate decision, or
> requires amendment to be valid, rather than withholding seconds.

I don't think the secretary currently has that power under the
Constitution.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@...)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Matthew Johnson-12]

On Mon Mar 23 15:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Also, I think we should let the secretary to decide if a GR proposal
> > modifies some foundation document, overrides a delegate decision, or
> > requires amendment to be valid, rather than withholding seconds.
>
> I don't think the secretary currently has that power under the
> Constitution.
>
(sorry to hijack the thread) this is exactly what I want to clarify in
the other thread over <----- there about constitutional issues. And why
I was trying to get that in _first_

Matt
--
Matthew Johnson

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:31:01PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> MJ Ray <mjr@...> writes:
>
> > I hope that others will support this debian and co-op view.
>
> I continue to object to this GR as currently worded because it is a
> stealth delegate override that doesn't clearly state its implications and
> effects.  I encourage all DDs to not second it until it's been fixed, even
> if you agree with the substance.

The options I can see that might end up on the ballot would include:
- 4.1.3: override a delegate [1:1]
- 4.1.5: position statement about the AGFL [1:1]
  (Either the same as ftp-master, or the opposite.)
- 4.1.5.3: override a foundation document [3:1]

The last option is probably unlikely.

The problem I see with a position statement is that it's
non-binding and that the delegate's decission would still hold.
What ftp-master does with that is up to them.

I currently see no problem putting it under both of them,
and would like to see that clearly in the text of the
proposal.


Kurt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Lionel Elie Mamane-2]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:

> RATIONALE (to be amended if necessary):

> 2. This clause is incompatible with section 3. of the Debian Free Software
> Guideline:

> 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
>     Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software can require you to
>     write a substantial amount of extra code to comply with this
>     clause.

No, it does not. Merely modifying the software does not trigger the
clause. It is triggered only if you offer a service to third parties
using your modified version, or distribute it to others that do. The
latter part (distribute to others that do) is unfortunate; I expect it
is not the intention of the AGPL writers. Distribution is the same
trigger than what triggers the "copyleft" clauses of the ordinary GPL;
so that trigger cannot in itself be a problem for DFSG freedom.

Even if the clause is triggered, the most additional "extra amount of
code" you have to write is provide a link to a download
location. Adding exactly one string in a relatively prominent
place. That's not "a substantial amount", especially as typically an
AGPL-covered software will already have the download link or
mechanism, you only have to change the URL or something like that. I'd
be sympathetic to a statement along the lines of:

 Software licensed under the AGPL, that does not itself provide an
 "opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source" in the meaning of
 clause 13, or is structured such that changing this opportunity to
 the source of modified version is not easy, is non DFSG-free, if it
 is not free for other reasons (e.g. dual license BSD / AGPL).

> 2.2 This clause forces the developer modifying the software to incur the cost
>     of providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server
>     as long as at least one person is using the software and this for
>     all published modifications, even long after the developer stopped using
>     the software.

Ah, I see. That's probably unfortunate wording; the onus should be on
the person providing a service to third parties through the software,
not the developer having made the modification. But indeed, the latter
seems to be what the license is technically saying.

> 3. This clause is incompatible with section 6. of the Debian Free Software
>    Guideline.

> 3.1 This clause does not allow you to modify the software to perform tasks
>     where complying with it is not technically feasible.

I have difficulties imagining a scenario where "complying with it is
not technically feasible"; also, it seems similar to the GPL's
mechanism of "if you cannot legally obey both the GPL and patent law /
a contract you have signed / ..., then you are not allowed to
distribute at all".

--
Lionel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Bill Allombert-3]

On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 02:27:10PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:50:45AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > RATIONALE (to be amended if necessary):

First of all, thanks a lot for your helpful contribution to this discussion.

> > 2. This clause is incompatible with section 3. of the Debian Free Software
> > Guideline:
>
> > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
> >     Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software can require you to
> >     write a substantial amount of extra code to comply with this
> >     clause.
>
> No, it does not. Merely modifying the software does not trigger the
> clause. It is triggered only if you offer a service to third parties
> using your modified version, or distribute it to others that do. The
> latter part (distribute to others that do) is unfortunate; I expect it
> is not the intention of the AGPL writers.

As written, suppose you modify it and distribute it (in source form) and
it reachs the original copyright holder, they can run it and complains if
it does not "prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a
computer network". So in practice the clause is triggered as soon as your
version supports such interaction.

> Distribution is the same
> trigger than what triggers the "copyleft" clauses of the ordinary GPL;
> so that trigger cannot in itself be a problem for DFSG freedom.

The trigger seems to be "modification" rather than "distribution".

> Even if the clause is triggered, the most additional "extra amount of
> code" you have to write is provide a link to a download
> location.

This assumes the program is a CGI script or at least can display text content
to the users interacting with it through a network.

> Adding exactly one string in a relatively prominent
> place. That's not "a substantial amount", especially as typically an
> AGPL-covered software will already have the download link or
> mechanism, you only have to change the URL or something like that. I'd
> be sympathetic to a statement along the lines of:
>
>  Software licensed under the AGPL, that does not itself provide an
>  "opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source" in the meaning of
>  clause 13, or is structured such that changing this opportunity to
>  the source of modified version is not easy, is non DFSG-free, if it
>  is not free for other reasons (e.g. dual license BSD / AGPL).

What if you are reusing only part of the software ?
What if your version (but not the original) implement a limited protocol that
does not allow to convey arbitrary messages to the users ?

> > 2.2 This clause forces the developer modifying the software to incur the cost
> >     of providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server
> >     as long as at least one person is using the software and this for
> >     all published modifications, even long after the developer stopped using
> >     the software.
>
> Ah, I see. That's probably unfortunate wording; the onus should be on
> the person providing a service to third parties through the software,
> not the developer having made the modification. But indeed, the latter
> seems to be what the license is technically saying.

I am unsure it is "unfortunate wording": copyright law does not permit to
impose arbitrary restriction on usage, and generally free software avoid
to restrict usage. Thus they can only restrict distribution (usual) or
modification (here).

> > 3. This clause is incompatible with section 6. of the Debian Free Software
> >    Guideline.
>
> > 3.1 This clause does not allow you to modify the software to perform tasks
> >     where complying with it is not technically feasible.
>
> I have difficulties imagining a scenario where "complying with it is
> not technically feasible"; also, it seems similar to the GPL's
> mechanism of "if you cannot legally obey both the GPL and patent law /
> a contract you have signed / ..., then you are not allowed to
> distribute at all".

That would be "not legally feasible".
Not technically feasible would mean you have technical requirement such that:
1) your program must fit in 8kB or
2) your program interact with users in a low-level way that preclude
from "proheminently offering" or
3) your program can send notice of "offering source" but clients
programs for this protocol generally never display such notice, so it is not
"proheminent" or
4) etc.
(e.g. a pop3 server can display a message when you telnet to it, but
almost nobody ever does that).

Cheers,
Bill

[Aigars Mahinovs]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

2009/3/19 Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@...>:

> Dear developers,
>
> I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
>
> Asking for seconds.
>
> - - - - - - -
> General Resolution made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5:
>
> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
> Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Software Guideline.
> - - - - - - -
>

I second the above proposal.

For me the whole reason of the DFSG is so that our user would be able
to take all the software in main, use it, change it and distribute it
with minimal legal hassle. Due to reasons other people voiced in the
thread, I do not think GNU AGPL fulfill the implicit 'no legal
surprises' criteria.

- --
Best regards,
    Aigars Mahinovs        mailto:aigarius@...
  #--------------------------------------------------------------#
 | .''`.    Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)            |
 | : :' :   Latvian Open Source Assoc. (http://www.laka.lv)     |
 | `. `'    Linux Administration and Free Software Consulting   |
 |   `-                                 (http://www.aiteki.com) |
 #--------------------------------------------------------------#

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.5)

iEYEARECAAYFAknZe9AACgkQMzCiFWcgm94RGQCePG2uVJv1aZpYtCFEIBLsZYMy
8kEAmgNQLXJy3zR9IzUSG7KSEqB12+LY
=mERC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...