On 2014-05-08 00:13, Clint Byrum wrote:
We don't ensure that users comply, we simply start them in a position
of compliance. If they change what we've given them, it is their
responsibility to remain in compliance. For the same reason, if they
modify the source of a program to link to an incompatibly licensed
library and build it, that is their prerogative.
The things that link to ghostscript as a library will now need to be
evaluated. If they are contacted via network ports, they'll need to
have source download capabilities added.
Right. I was worried about that. This would make all programs that
satisfy this instantly non-license compliant (RC-buggy with threat of
being removed from the archive?) when AGPL'ed ghostscript is uploaded.
(OTOH Ubuntu apparently did not care for 14.04, because Ghostscript
there is already AGPL.) Unless we argue that we do not actually run the
software and it's the users' responsibility to get into compliance. And
that's the thing I'd heavily disagree with. And we'd suddenly need more
infrastructure to actually allow those source downloads (and how much
source? just Ghostscript? but the whole thing is transitively AGPL
now!).
So I only checked very carelessly right now, but it does not seem like
that software actually exists. I see gimp, gle-graphics and
texlive-binaries linking against it. And those are not typically network
services.
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
--
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/6fbfac0a09f5e78e6223c78dc96e1...@hub.kern.lc
