On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 05:03:20 PM Bastian Blank wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute > > that piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your > > right to use it without obnoxious and potentially crippling restrictions. > > Not right. You have to allow _access_ to it via a computer network. > > > That's section 9 of AGPL v3. > > Please read section 9 of GPL v3, it is identical. > > > Per section 13, any derived software that "supports remote interaction > > through a computer network" must present a prominent offer to every user, > > no matter if that's feasible or possible. > > You miss a vital part of this sentence: "(if your version supports such > interaction)". Please quote complete sentences if you try to proof > something. > > > The official FTPmaster response came in #495721, and it doesn't even > > mention this issue, only three minor points (cost of running a webserver > > with sources, private use, contaminating reverse dependencies). > > GPL also contaminates its reverse dependencies. So what? Okay, in this > case you actually have to do something for it.
It's precisely the forced distribution of modifications that makes it unsuitable for any use that is any way security sensitive. If you take a GPLv3 web server (as an example) and it is built by your distributor against the AGPL libdb version, the combined work is effectively AGPL, which means if you use a local security fix on your web server, you've violated the terms under which you've received the code. Totally unsuitable. It doesn't matter if libdb supports network interaction or not. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4241872.WOu7pss5Jc@scott-latitude-e6320
