Bug#505878: ITP: libfunambol-cpp-client-api -- unclarified AGPL
David Bremner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You might want to follow up on the thread in debian-legal http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00046.html I understand someone from Funambol is following that thread. It would be nice to have some concensus about what, if any exceptions are required for AGPL software to be in main. I'm aware of the thread. Francesco Poli already provided a link from that thread to a more detailed list of queries http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00233.html and I don't think it becomes more persuasive if I repeat one of them. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#505878: ITP: libfunambol-cpp-client-api -- unclarified AGPL
libfunambol-cpp-client-api appears to be under a plain AGPLv3. Clause 13 of the AGPLv3 requires hosting users to provide access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge to every visitor to the web pages generated by this software. If used to produce a public website, this is an infinite download liability and a significant cost may result from running the software. Further, the cost is disproportionate to the modification because the whole software must be offered and not only the modifications. So, I believe this does not meet DFSG 1, 4, 3 and/or 6 as it stands: it requires a fee for use, restricts the source code from being modified without allowing distribution of patch files, and/or discriminates against use of modified versions for production of public websites. I think some copyright holders of software under AGPLv3 have stated that linking to an upstream download site is sufficient provision of access for the parts you did not modify, regardless of the availability of that site, which would clear DFSG 4 and reduce the 1/3/6 concerns immensely. For example http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/08/msg00056.html There is nothing in the FSF FAQ about this yet either way. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html Would libfunambol-cpp-client-api's copyright holders agree to make a similar statement? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#505878: ITP: libfunambol-cpp-client-api -- unclarified AGPL
At Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:51:40 +, MJ Ray wrote: I think some copyright holders of software under AGPLv3 have stated that linking to an upstream download site is sufficient provision of access for the parts you did not modify, regardless of the availability of that site, which would clear DFSG 4 and reduce the 1/3/6 concerns immensely. For example http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/08/msg00056.html There is nothing in the FSF FAQ about this yet either way. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html Would libfunambol-cpp-client-api's copyright holders agree to make a similar statement? Perhaps; they have expressed willingness to make some efforts to help Debian, although this was about the issue of whether section 13 applies to client code. You might want to follow up on the thread in debian-legal http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/11/msg00046.html I understand someone from Funambol is following that thread. It would be nice to have some concensus about what, if any exceptions are required for AGPL software to be in main. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
