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
