The (A)GPLv3 makes it clear that it permits all licensees to remove any additional terms that are “further restrictions” under the (A)GPLv3. It states, “[i]f the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.”
Interesting, and quite clear.
The whole response is very good, reasonable, and direct.
I’m interested to see what OnlyOffice will do. Maybe they’ll relicense their whole product, leading to a community fork under AGPL.
I’ve grown to like the freedom concept in software less and less over time. Software is the one set of technology anyone can develop without the need of extensive material resources, and yet we have standardized the idea that its distribution and use must be apolitical and open to anybody or anything. We could have a beautiful system like this for, lets say, the pharma industry. Have all R&D in medicine be unrestrictable and public. But we only do this in software, and if you attempt to license stating that “this software is forbidden to use for military purposes” the FSF will look at you with discontent because your software is not free. Their argument for this is that if we let “good” licenses break freedom, then we legitimize everyone doing it, including bad actors. Same centrist logic avid las respecting people uses all the time. This gives me a bad feeling.
Same goes for open-source though in the “no military usage” example, as the OSI says “No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups” and “The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor”
In euro office’s case, the fsf acknowledges a lot of licenses as free and many allow additional terms (MIT for example). The AGPL just isn’t one of them, and if onlyoffice decided that they did want to add rules, they could’ve chose another free license.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
