Excerpts from Don Armstrong's message of 2014-05-08 12:06:08 -0700: > On Thu, 08 May 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > On Wed, 7 May 2014, Bálint Réczey wrote: > > > In my interpretation in this case I would have some reasonable time > > > to comply, i.e. I don't have to publish all 0days on my site if I > > > run AGPL-covered software.. > > You only have to publish code to users who are interacting with that > code. If you're deploying 0 day fixes to the internet, then you're going > to have to provide access to the same code so that other people can take > advantage of your fixes. > > > On Wed, 7 May 2014, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > The things that link to ghostscript as a library will now need to be > > > evaluated. If they are contacted via network ports, they'll need to > > > have source download capabilities added. > > This is incorrect. They only need to have this in place if they modify > the AGPLed work. >
Good point, and I forgot about the second paragraph of section 13: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License." Which I think might mean that the programs linking to libghostscript can stay under the GPL-3. It might mean that. I'm not entirely sure, and I haven't asked a lawyer. If it didn't mean that, then I think AGPL may infringe on DFSG point 3, since derived, combined works are effectively under a different license that requires source code dissemination. -- 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/1399580754-sup-7...@fewbar.com
