On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:42:09 +0100 Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked
> about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.
>
> The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
> go into main. (Provided they don't hav
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:08:24 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Miriam Ruiz:
>
> > We should somehow tag those conflictive licenses with debtags, so that
> > users can filter out the ones they don't wont easily. I don't object
> > to having AGPL in Debian, but I don't plan to install anything under
I'll only comment on point 1, the use fee, because I think others have
answered the other questions and found solutions for the problem.
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We do not think that this is a severe enough problem to restrict the
> freeness of a work licensed using the AGPL.
>
* Miriam Ruiz:
> We should somehow tag those conflictive licenses with debtags, so that
> users can filter out the ones they don't wont easily. I don't object
> to having AGPL in Debian, but I don't plan to install anything under
> that license in my system, and AFAIK there are other people in the
2008/12/2 Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Resource requirements have not traditionally been considered factors
> in judging software freeness.
>
> But you are right that the AGPL (and perhaps the GPL version 3 as
> well) fail my personal test for DRM-ness: A feature which, once added,
> cann
* Bernhard R. Link:
> * Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081201 13:37]:
>> * Bernhard R. Link:
>> > And you think that once there will be hundreds of such renamed projects
>> > of the same program which only have some patches that are not very
>> > usefull for most people because of having to s
* Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081201 13:37]:
> * Bernhard R. Link:
> > And you think that once there will be hundreds of such renamed projects
> > of the same program which only have some patches that are not very
> > usefull for most people because of having to specific solutions and no
>
* Bernhard R. Link:
> And you think that once there will be hundreds of such renamed projects
> of the same program which only have some patches that are not very
> usefull for most people because of having to specific solutions and no
> activity but some "please do not delete the project, I need
* Joerg Jaspert:
>> 3) It might contaminate unrelated software.
>
> We aren't sure that this is much different to the "normal" GPL. It is a
> copyleft license after all. So unless someone declares the GPL non-free
> thanks to that, we disagree with applying it to the AGPL.
I think the difference
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081129 13:34]:
>> > Current hosting services usually only have one project for a specific
>> > piece of software with a limited set of people allowed to change it.
>> > I don't see how "I do not want to maintai
* Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081129 13:34]:
> > Current hosting services usually only have one project for a specific
> > piece of software with a limited set of people allowed to change it.
> > I don't see how "I do not want to maintain this software, I just need
> > this patch with a mi
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081129 11:26]:
>> > All of those services are usually only for code that is to be hosted for
>> > the public. I consider the claim that there will be enough hosting
>> > services for people needing to put their p
* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081129 11:26]:
> > All of those services are usually only for code that is to be hosted for
> > the public. I consider the claim that there will be enough hosting
> > services for people needing to put their personal modifications not
> > suiteable for a general
> All of those services are usually only for code that is to be hosted for
> the public. I consider the claim that there will be enough hosting
> services for people needing to put their personal modifications not
> suiteable for a general public consumption and not interested in any
> further wor
On 11583 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked
> about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.
> The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
> go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems).
S
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:42:09PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked
> about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.
> The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
> go into main. (Provided they don't have an
* Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081128 12:41]:
> We do not think that this is a severe enough problem to restrict the
> freeness of a work licensed using the AGPL.
> - Offering a publically accessible network service already comes with a
>cost that might be hard to calculate. Think about
"Miriam Ruiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/11/28 Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been
> > asked about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.
> >
> > The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL
> > can go i
2008/11/28 Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked
> about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.
>
> The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
> go into main. (Provided they don't have any other p
Hi,
recently we, your mostly friendly Ftpmaster and -team, have been asked
about an opinion about the AGPL in Debian.
The short summary is: We think that works licensed under the AGPL can
go into main. (Provided they don't have any other problems).
Reason:
The concerns people have expressed with
20 matches
Mail list logo
