On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote: > texlive-bin uses the software (gs), As you, yourself, said, the > difference between the AGPL and the GPL is that the AGPL protects the > user, not only the people that download the software. This means that by > some interpretation (Ian Jackson said so, for example), the AGPL will > contaminate texlive, whereas the GPL did not. > > Do you see what changed there?
I understand this interpretation, and if my library would be used in such a way, I would indeed like this to be true. This means that the license change of gs is relevant for texlive-bin if it must follow this license. But the fact that it already uses a GPL-incompatible license means that (according to the upstream and Debian maintainers) the license of gs doesn't contaminate texlive-bin, and if that is true, it will be exactly the same for the AGPL. If that interpretation is correct, it seems like a giant loophole in the AGPL though. Thanks, Bas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140507214506.gy10...@fmf.nl