Ondřej Surý wrote at 00:36 (EDT):
> (d) Is it ok to switch 106 source packages and their reverse depends
> to AGPLv3?
I think that might be stated a bit more clearly: you won't be changing
the license of the upstream works; you'd be changing the license of the
dowstream whole as it appears in Debi
decision for Debian for many reasons, including this one:
>> – beside generating problems for GPL2-only dependees on libapt of
>> course)
I'm curious, are there many of these?
> On 03/07/13 16:34, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: [...]
>>> I know that some have complained that comp
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote at 03:14 (EDT):
> So, I wonder, do we have any idea (due to them having already been
> mentioned publicly elsewhere) about the craziest interpretation of
> AGPL that the "evil guys" might come up with and, at the other end of
> the spectrum, the most restrictive one?
> AFA
Many people off-list have been asking me to comment on this discussion,
because (like Richard Fontana) I'm a co-author of AGPLv3, and I also
(back in the early 2000's) invented the original licensing idea behind
the AGPLv1.
I thus care deeply about the license and believe it's an important
policy
4 matches
Mail list logo
