On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We
> (generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped
> distributing the binary. The AGPL requires distribution of source at
> any time that
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>
>> I swear I'm not being purposely dense, but I honestly don't understand
>> how this is any different than the way Debian handles distributing
>> source for all other packages.
>
> We only distribut
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> 2008/9/3 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> >> > The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use,
> >> > which is more difficult.
> >>
> >> Why? You just have to put a link
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>> > The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use,
>> > which is more difficult.
>>
>> Why? You just have to put a link somewhere "source here".
>
> And the link has to go to somewher
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> 2008/9/3 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we
> > do to the binaries,
>
> And doesn't the AGPL too? Both the program and the source over the
> network?
No, it requires distri
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>> You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only
>> to those who ask.
>
> The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do
> to the binaries,
And doesn't the
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only
> to those who ask.
The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do
to the binaries, which is something that is easily solvable using the
same distribution
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
> If it's a small embedded system, the source code is likely also to be
> small. Or is this a combination of the "small embedded system" objection
> and the "gigabytes of modified source" objection?
This problem could actually arise for the GPL too. Cons
2008/9/2 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my
> expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the
> DFSG?"
Why is this a question that matters for the AGPL? Are you saying that
the condition of distributing source ov
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > What about it? A finding by a court that a GPL clause is severable
> > or that I am excused from complying with it is not a "condition" in
> > the sense of article 12.
>
> OK, I trust you in this, but shouldn't we wait for a
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and
> act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance
> with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee.
> That leaves the rest of the license intact.
The BRIC Telecoms Report – The 4 largest Emerging Markets Compared,
Analysed & Forecast
- New Report - OUT TODAY -
Brazil, Russia, India and China are regarded as the four biggest emerging
markets. Between the end of 2001 and the end of 2007, BRIC nations added 660
million new mob
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Bernhard R. Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080902 11:23]:
> > In these cases, all it's doing is ensuring that the users of the software
> > are granted the four software freedoms.
>
> It's not the users of the software, it's the u
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > 1. Along similar lines, one question I keep returning to is
> >
> > "Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my
> > expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the
> > DFSG?"
>
> It doe
MJ Ray wrote:
> 1. Along similar lines, one question I keep returning to is
>
> "Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my
> expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the
> DFSG?"
It doesn't require you to give them a copy. It requires you to o
Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are two points:
>
> 1) Is this software DFSG-free?
> 2) Does putting it into Debian have unfortunate practical consequences?
>
> In pursuit of an answer to question 1, I was making the point that there
> is no longer a meaningful distinction or bri
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> What about point 12?
>
> What about it? A finding by a court that a GPL clause is severable
> or that I am excused from complying with it is not a "condition" in
> the sense of article 12.
OK, I trust you in this, but shouldn't we wait for a cour
severity 488766 wishlist
retitle 488766 librdf0-dev: Please provide gnutls flavor
thanks
On Tue Sep 02 14:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I filed bug#488766 some months ago with no response from maintainer.
>
> Could I please have some more eyeballs on that: Am I right that Redland
> viol
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> 2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and
> > act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance
> > with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee.
> > That leaves th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi again,
Thanks for the quick response!
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:57:40PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>On Tue Sep 02 14:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Currently morla (ITP bug#431824) cannot be packaged as it is GPL.
>> Should I convince upstr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I filed bug#488766 some months ago with no response from maintainer.
Could I please have some more eyeballs on that: Am I right that Redland
violates GPL?
Or is it ok since Redland is dual-licensed, so it should simply always
be considered as
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> The point, for me at least, is just to be aware of the consequences
> that having a program with that license will have both for Debian and
> its users, and whether we should put that stuff in main or not.
There are two points:
1) Is this software DFSG-free?
2) Does putting i
2008/9/2 Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I
> interacted with the services provided by that software using the
> attached monitor and keyboard. Now, I interact with the services
> provided by software that runs on a computer somew
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> It's not the users of the software, it's the users of services run by
> the software.
But in today's world, that's no longer a meaningful distinction.
It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I
interacted with the services provided by that software u
* Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080902 11:23]:
> In these cases, all it's doing is ensuring that the users of the software
> are granted the four software freedoms.
It's not the users of the software, it's the users of services run by
the software.
> We do not view this as a use
> restriction, a
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and
> act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance
> with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee.
> That leaves the rest of the license intact
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 01:49:38PM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
> > 2008/9/1 Christofer C. Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you
> > > modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illeg
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it were just "running on your server", there would be no distribution
> requirement. But it is running on your server and sending and receiving
> data from the user, which is different.
This is the core of the issue.
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> As the AGPLv3 will force you, from the United States, to offer
> cryptographic software for export in the event that you modify server
> software using it and (make that software available for interaction
> over a network), it is forcing you to violate US law.
Making cr
Francesco Poli wrote:
> In the case of the AfferoGPLv3, I am *not* already distributing
> software.
But you are distributing some sort of data - otherwise the person using
the software would not be interacting with it. Interaction requires
exchange of data.
> I modified the application and simp
30 matches
Mail list logo
