I moved the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
(please CC me).
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 06:05:25PM +, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:45:25PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > Again, this is not the language that the AGPL uses. It requires that
> > "your modified vers
Hello,
I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place.
(please CC me).
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:04:49AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > If you modify a GPL-licensed software and distribute the modif
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:24:38PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
> > > Doing a simple modifica
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> As I said: I do not see a difference between a license that does not
> give me some right (or even tries to take away some rights copyright law
> does not take away) and a license which theoretically grant it but puts
> so many restrictions in it that one practically does
* David Claughton [091114 20:23]:
> AIUI you are allowed to run the program on your computer, assuming that
> the service cannot be connected to from a remote location (or you are
> the only person that can do so).
So I may not put that code into an smtp server, or a webserver or or or
without ge
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * David Claughton [091114 12:43]:
>> I agree this makes the license problematic and might make developers
>> choose to avoid working on AGPL code - however as I said above, all
>> licenses put some limits on what you can modify, some more than others,
>> at least if you w
* David Claughton [091114 12:43]:
> I agree this makes the license problematic and might make developers
> choose to avoid working on AGPL code - however as I said above, all
> licenses put some limits on what you can modify, some more than others,
> at least if you want to distribute the result.
* Bill Allombert:
> = Text of the GR ===
> The Debian project resolves that softwares licensed under the GNU Affero
> General Public License are not free according to the Debian Free Software
> Guideline.
> = End of the text ==
I think this has to b
* Mike Hommey:
> Stupid question: with this wording of the AGPL, who, in his right mind,
> will be licensing a DNS or POP server under this license ? (Except maybe
> someone who didn't read it)
Someone might take a GPLv3 project, make enhancements to it, publish
the combination under the AGPL, an
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * David Claughton [091113 21:42]:
>> Now this could certainly involve more extensive modifications than you
>> might otherwise want to do, and you might well decide it's not worth the
>> effort. However I'm still not entirely convinced it makes the license
>> non-free.
>
* David Claughton [091113 21:42]:
> Now this could certainly involve more extensive modifications than you
> might otherwise want to do, and you might well decide it's not worth the
> effort. However I'm still not entirely convinced it makes the license
> non-free.
If the license makes running a
David Claughton wrote:
> The Fungi wrote:
>> goes a great deal further than this, by *requiring* you to become a
>> distributor of software you use, even if you only do something so
>> simple as make a minor modification to an AGPL-covered work
>> providing a network service.
>
> You are only requ
The Fungi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:07:12PM +, David Claughton wrote:
> [...]
>> It is always possible to modify free software in ways that effectively
>> make it non-free - for example if you remove all the copyright
>> statements from a BSD covered program.
> [...]
>
> This is untr
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
> > Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software might require
> > you to
> > write
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:07:12PM +, David Claughton wrote:
[...]
> It is always possible to modify free software in ways that effectively
> make it non-free - for example if you remove all the copyright
> statements from a BSD covered program.
[...]
This is untrue, at least for modern 3-clau
The Fungi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:28:59PM +, David Claughton wrote:
> [...]
>> You might want to, but AFAICT you would not be able to distribute
>> the result if the user cannot be told how to get the source to the
>> AGPL parts you included. That doesn't mean the original software
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 09:28:59PM +, David Claughton wrote:
[...]
> You might want to, but AFAICT you would not be able to distribute
> the result if the user cannot be told how to get the source to the
> AGPL parts you included. That doesn't mean the original software
> isn't DFSG free, at le
Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Stupid question: with this wording of the AGPL, who, in his right mind,
>> will be licensing a DNS or POP server under this license ? (Except maybe
>> someone who didn't read it)
>
> There are lots of people who pick
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
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 sys
Hi,
On Thu, 12.11.2009 at 12:51:56 +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 01:07:24PM -0800, Rodrigo Gallardo wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:41:31PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > >-- The code is modified to interact with the user using a network
> > > > protocol
> > > >
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 01:07:24PM -0800, Rodrigo Gallardo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:41:31PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > >-- The code is modified to interact with the user using a network
> > > protocol
> > > that does not allow to display a prominent offer.
> >
> > Any exampl
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Stupid question: with this wording of the AGPL, who, in his right mind,
> will be licensing a DNS or POP server under this license ? (Except maybe
> someone who didn't read it)
There are lots of people who pick a license without close reading.
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, S
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 co
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:45:25PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> Again, this is not the language that the AGPL uses. It requires that
> "your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with
> it remotely through a computer network" the source. Notice the text
> "your modifie
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 w
Oh no, please, Please, PLEASE, *PLEASE* do not cross-post the discussions
between debian-vote and debian-devel. There is no point having separated lists
otherwise.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.
> > Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software might require
> > you to
> > write
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> -- The code is modified to interact with the user using a network protocol
>> that does not allow to display a prominent offer.
>
> This is actually your best argument so far, but I don't think it's
> completely true either.
Yes
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Dear developers,
>
> I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
> (this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in
> <20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig>)
>
> Asking for seconds,
> (please CC me)
> Bil
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:41:31PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> >-- The code is modified to interact with the user using a network
> > protocol
> > that does not allow to display a prominent offer.
>
> Any example of this?
One could add an IMAP interface to a blog management system, allow
Bill Allombert wrote:
> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
>
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
> Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting
> with it remotely through a computer
Dear developers,
I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration.
(this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in <20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig>)
Asking for seconds,
(please CC me)
Bill.
This General Resolution is made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5,
34 matches
Mail list logo
