On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:03:20PM +0200, 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.
Which you can do without distributing the code, thus accepting the license is not required. You can _run_ the code you received, just not distribute it to third parties. > > That's section 9 of AGPL v3. > > Please read section 9 of GPL v3, it is identical. Yes, you can run code under regular GPL without accepting is as well; which is a moot point as the GPL contains no use restrictions. > > 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)". An IMAP server does support remote interaction through a computer network. > Please quote complete sentences if you try to proof something. I did, replacing the word "such" with the definition it refers to, mentioned before the text I quoted. > > 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. Any license without a linking exception contaminates parts that rely on it, and so does copying fragments of code. You include a single function under a BSD license? You need to fulfill its requirements, ie keep the notices, forever, as long as you keep including that function. That's why this is not a relevant argument against AGPL But none of the above three points are what I'm talking about here. > > Thus, could someone please explain, are there any arguments that > > forbidding reuse with any protocols that don't support sending bulk > > ancillary text would be free? > > Okay, you did not read it. What? Please point me to any other license in main that has an _use_ restriction. You often have to jump through hops as for what kind of modifications remain distributable, but no DFSG-free license restricts: * local modifications * use -- ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ -- 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/20130710155647.ga7...@angband.pl
