Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Toni Mueller wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, 11.11.2009 at 23:46:59 +0100, Martin Langhoff > wrote: >> Yes, this is one of the awkward things I find in the AGPL. If it's not >> a webapp, what then? > > please see this: > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely > > It could eg. also be network file system software (NFS, AFS, SMB, > etc.). Yes, I am aware of that. What I was trying to say is "how do we comply, then?" >> That would be complying with the spirit of the license, but not the >> actual clause AFAICS. > > Ok. I'd say that this should have been an oversight in the formulation > of the license, but maybe consulting the original discussions when the > license was in the making, could be enlightening. Yes, it will help us understand the spirit better. But we are looking at what the license actually says. m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
Hi, On Wed, 11.11.2009 at 23:46:59 +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote: > Yes, this is one of the awkward things I find in the AGPL. If it's not > a webapp, what then? please see this: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely It could eg. also be network file system software (NFS, AFS, SMB, etc.). > > If the software uses some other protocol that doesn't allow you to do > > some lay-out like HTTP does, then you simply need to make sure that > > people using your software are informed out-of-band. > > That would be complying with the spirit of the license, but not the > actual clause AFAICS. Ok. I'd say that this should have been an oversight in the formulation of the license, but maybe consulting the original discussions when the license was in the making, could be enlightening. Kind regards, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
Frank Lin PIAT a écrit : > Russell Coker wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >>> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are >>> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that >>> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot. >> If you connect to my SMTP server you will see a legal disclaimer (which I >> claim to be as valid as any that you may see in a .sig). > [..] >> Now in terms of granting rights, if my mail server contained AGPL code >> and this was displayed in the SMTP protocol then a user could connect >> to it and discover whether I was using code for which they could demand >> the source. > > I disagree with your interpretation. > The AGPL states "prominently offer all users", displaying at protocol > level doesn't comply with either "prominently" nor with "all users" > (because only a few sysadmins will telnet to port 25.) > Such offer should be on SMTP *and* on the website offering this service. I fail to see how it would be more prominently offered. At least tcp/25 is related to the service itself, a website has nothing to do with it. (I mean, there /might/ be a website offering the service, but in most cases there is not). Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are >> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that >> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot. > > If you connect to my SMTP server you will see a legal disclaimer (which I > claim to be as valid as any that you may see in a .sig). [..] > Now in terms of granting rights, if my mail server contained AGPL code > and this was displayed in the SMTP protocol then a user could connect > to it and discover whether I was using code for which they could demand > the source. I disagree with your interpretation. The AGPL states "prominently offer all users", displaying at protocol level doesn't comply with either "prominently" nor with "all users" (because only a few sysadmins will telnet to port 25.) Such offer should be on SMTP *and* on the website offering this service. (Would you consider it valid if the offer were included in HTTP headers?) /me don't like AGPL, especially due to the way linked/combined code is contaminated. I hate the way FSF made an exception for GPL-v3, and not for "any compatible license". That's proprietary sh*t. Regards, Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
