In article <nfdvy-6f...@gated-at.bofh.it>, Bas Wijnen <wij...@debian.org> wrote: >On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:44:16PM -0700, Jose Luis Rivas wrote: >> I saw it and I fail to see what exactly they want to achieve with this >> change since AGPLv3 is for web apps. > >I license almost all my work as AGPL, because I like that clause. The idea of >the GPL is to make sure that all end users are free to do what they want, not >just the people who initially received the software. With more and more things >turning into web applications, you need the AGPL to continue to do this. So >even if my code is not intended for using as a web service, I want my indirect >users to have their freedoms when it is. > >I didn't look into their arguments at all, but I'm guessing it's along the same >lines.
Although the intent of AGPLv3 may be for web apps, the actual wording used is "interacting with it remotely through a computer network". So, when someone is running xdvi through a thin client, and xdvi calls gs as a subprocess, then they are interacting with gs through a computer network and AGPL (section 13, specifically) applies. >> > * texlive-bin (texlive-binaries) >> >> Actually with this one is worst, since the LPPL is not compatible with >> the GPL, lets not even talk about GPLv3 or AGPLv3 :-/ > >If it's incompatible with the GPL and the way they distributed it was >acceptable, then I can't see why anything would have changed now. See my paragraph above. Also, please note that texlive is a compilation of many parts from many different sources, and they use different licenses. In particular, xdvi uses a license based on the X Consortium license. --Paul Vojta, vo...@math.berkeley.edu -- 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/lkm227$7vt$1...@dont-email.me
