>>-----Original Message----- >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Howard Chu >>Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:09 AM >>To: Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> >>Cc: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition >>conflict
>>> I think what you're saying is that, assuming your interpretation of >>> AGPL (including but not limited to section 13) is correct, a would-be >>> LDAP implementation with an AGPL-licensed dependency would be forced >>> to choose between compliance with the standard and compliance with >>> AGPL? >>That sounds like a fair summary, yes. Also, simply adding a non-standard >>extension to our server to meet this license requirement doesn't solve >>anything, if all LDAP clients aren't also modified to recognize the >>extension, and that in particular seems an unrealistic >>task. I'm curious if this is simply a drafting/interpretation issue, or something else. For example, if Section 13 of AGPL said: "if you modify the Program, you must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software." Instead of "if you modify the Program, *your modified version* must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software." I always understood the intent of this clause was that if your modified Program was offered for remote interaction to users, then those users should have a way to get the source, not that the actual modified program had to provide the mechanism to get the source. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
