AGPL and Debian

[Francesco Poli]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:08:24 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Miriam Ruiz:
> 
> > We should somehow tag those conflictive licenses with debtags, so that
> > users can filter out the ones they don't wont easily. I don't object
> > to having AGPL in Debian, but I don't plan to install anything under
> > that license in my system, and AFAIK there are other people in the
> > same situation as I. This wouldn't hurt those who consider if free,
> > but at the same time would allow us to filter them out easily.
> 
> Sure, and with the GFDL, it might be the other way round.

I don't think a select-which-licenses-you-like-or-don't-like approach
could really work for the end user.

A user could easily reject packages licensed under terms he/she doesn't
consider Free (or just doesn't like), but there's no guarantee that the
resulting archive (that is to say: main minus packages under license L)
would be self-contained.  After dropping packages under license L, many
other packages could become uninstallable due to dependencies, or even
FTBFS due to build-dependencies (and the latter is not easily
detected by end users!).
Moreover, what if some essential/priority:required package is under
license L?

I am convinced that the DFSG-free/non-free distinction has to be worked
out Project-wide, rather than on a per-user basis.

-- 
 On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND
 "nano-documents" may lead you to my website...  
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20081203/51b22dff/attachment.pgp