On Aug 27, 2013 8:15 AM, "Thorsten Glaser" <t...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due > to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB. > > I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at > least two points: > > • The inability to provide security support for AGPL software > (embargoed fixes)/ > > • The requirements for source delivery using the network once > someone patches it. > > • The “viral” component, like GPL, only worsened by the above. > > I’d like to see whether there was anything decided, since I’ve > been asked yesternight to sponsor some packages, and one of them > contained AGPLv3+ code (and it’s a plugin for an LGPLv2.1+ program, > so I asked the prospective maintainer to hit upstream with a big > foamy cluebat about their choice of licence – which he did – since > it’d Conflicts with e.g. GPLv2-only plugins). > > So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main?
Yes. > > Personally I’m ambiguous, but then, I’m not a fan of GPL either. > > bye, > //mirabilos > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130827t135650-...@post.gmane.org >
