2008/9/3 Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If being usable in an SSH session counts as "supporting" remote
> interaction "through a computer network", then basically every program
> supports such interaction!
You're right, ssh was a bad example, probably not covered by clause 13.
> On Wed, 3
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:27:14 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
[...]
> If on the other hand you let the other user interact with your laptop
> through a network (say, they ssh into it), then clause 13 of the AGPL
> applies.
I am not following you here.
Section 13 of the AfferoGPLv3 states, in
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Miriam Ruiz wrote:
>> Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test?
>
> The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source
> distribution passes the test, but only that it's possible to pass the test.
I kn
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test?
The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source
distribution passes the test, but only that it's possible to pass the test.
The life of a dissident is a complicated and difficult one
2008/9/3 Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/9/3 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...]
>>>
>>> I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and
>>> Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one
2008/9/3 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...]
>>
>> I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and
>> Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name.
>> Which services allow anonymous h
2008/9/3 MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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?"
>>
>>
2008/9/3 Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> released, MJ Ray's concerns are quite real and they're something to
> think about quite seriously.
I meant Don's concerns, sorry.
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
2008/9/3 Arc Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 requi
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> "You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
> privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
> exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
> notify anyone in part
MJ Ray wrote:
>> It doesn't require you to give them a copy. It requires you to offer it.
>> In other words, the app you let them use might have a "Save Source"
>> link, but they are responsible for bringing the USB stick.
>
> If that were the case, it would be fine if the AGPLv3 app on my
> webse
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
> The AGPLv3 only requires the distribution of /modified/ source.
The things that Debian distributes which are not modified are
vanishingly small (and all of the examples I can think of are cases
where Debian Developers are the upstream too.) So we're going to
"Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 A
13 matches
Mail list logo
