Hi, 2014-05-07 14:37 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser <t...@debian.org>: > On Wed, 7 May 2014, Ian Jackson wrote: > >> Yes. But this isn't as bad as you think, because the source >> availability requirement exists only if you modify the AGPL'd >> software. > > Which you may want to do, in order to patch a security issue > you just found, locally, before filing it upstream. In my interpretation in this case I would have some reasonable time to comply, i.e. I don't have to publish all 0days on my site if I run AGPL-covered software.
> Or because you’re a user of Debian and used to be able to do > just that. Hmm, as a Debian user I'm used to respecting the license of any software being it BSD, GPL or AGPL... > This basically fails “Licence must not be specific to Debian” > if you assume the “did not modify so this clause does not > apply” case. This reasoning could have been brought up in the context of relicensing previously BSD licensed software under GPL, and I think it would have been invalid in that case, too. Cheers, Balint -- 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/cak0odpwo23jp5c7oe8olq1z6cbo5cjs-usexnuzyxx6+g_b...@mail.gmail.com
