On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:52:34 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
> This is why I propose that alternate wording - which surely deserves
> improvement - which makes clearer that this doesn't have to be for
> free or on a network server; just that accessing the software must
> give access to the sou
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:43:23 +0200 Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:13:30 +0200, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
[...]
> > Perhaps it would be better (in respect of this particular question)
> > if the AGPL extra clause said simply:
> >
> > "Notwithstanding a
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:13:30 +0200, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
But surely the entire point in question is whether presenting the UI to
someone across the network is conveying or not? GPLv3 says it isn't,
AGPL says it is.
Perhaps it would be better (in respect of this parti
Le jeudi 14 juin 2007 à 09:36 +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The current wording is way too specific, and requires providing the
> > source at no charge on a network server. In the event where the user
> > pays for using the service, the source cod
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The current wording is way too specific, and requires providing the
> source at no charge on a network server. In the event where the user
> pays for using the service, the source code availability would then
> have to be included in the price.
That
Le mercredi 13 juin 2007 à 01:27 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > > Bad: use restriction, with a cost associated to it
> >
> > A better wording would then be:
> > ... an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source under
> > the same conditions as those of using the Prog
Francesco Poli wrote:
The restriction in the GPL is about the act of conveying copies of the
work.
The restriction in the AGPL is about *using* the modified work: there's
a cost associated with *use*...
But surely the entire point in question is whether presenting the UI to
someone across the
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:33:44 +0100 Gervase Markham wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Bad: no clear definition of remote users
> >
> > The term "user" is not clearly defined.
>
> Is your point that it is impossible to clearly define, or do you have
> alternative language?
I cannot have
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:24:43 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 11 juin 2007 à 23:57 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > > (if your version supports
> > > such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
> > > Source of your version by providing access to copy the
> > > Correspo
Le lundi 11 juin 2007 à 23:57 +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit :
> > (if your version supports
> > such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source
> > of your version by providing access to copy the Corresponding Source
> > from a network server at no charge.
>
> Bad: use re
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Incidentally, what part of the DFSG is the Dissident test supposed
> to help test against?)
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident>
I believe it tests against DFSG§5, "No Discrimination Against Persons
or Groups".
http://www.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>(Incidentally, what part of the DFSG is the Dissident test supposed to
>help test against?)
The imaginary clause.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francesco Poli wrote:
Bad: no clear definition of remote users
The term "user" is not clearly defined.
Is your point that it is impossible to clearly define, or do you have
alternative language?
Do you know how the corresponding clause in the current Affero license
has historically
Hi all,
the first discussion draft of the GNU Affero General Public License (GNU
AGPL) version 3 has been announced by the FSF.
The full text of this first draft can be read at
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/agplv3-draft-1.html
The text of this license draft is basically identical to the fourth
dra
14 matches
Mail list logo
