Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: GPL2 + required to have the place to get the recent
version"):
> I'm leaving aside the question that has been picked up, regarding
> whether this can be made under the GPLv2, or whether this is a
> "requirement" or a "polite reques
Samuel Henrique dijo [Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:35:12PM +]:
> Hello legal,
>
> So I stumbled upon this rather interesting case of a software licensed by
> GPL2 but with an extra "clause" to it:
> "
> # If you enclose this script or parts of it in your software, it has to
> # be accompanied by th
I mean, that's not entirely relevant in the context of this discussion.
That file tells users not to use the software if they don't agree to the
license, but section 9 of both the GPL and AGPL 3.0 say that a license is
not required to receive and run a copy of the program, and copyright does
not li
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 08:00:04 -0500 Daniel Hakimi wrote:
> But even the AGPL does not restrict *use*.
[...]
I personally think the GNU AfferoGPL v3 *does* restrict use.
That's one of the main [reasons] why I think the AfferoGPL does *not*
meet the DFSG. The Debian FTP Masters don't agree with me,
But even the AGPL does not restrict *use*. The text seems generally
uninformed to me, and I wouldn't assume much of anything, especially not
when I could communicate with the people who wrote it instead.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 06:20 Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Il 13/11/19 01:03, Daniel Hakimi ha
Il 13/11/19 01:03, Daniel Hakimi ha scritto:
> But the text is informal and the party seems to not really understand
> the license to begin with (again, he's talking about "use," that's not
> really even relevant to copyright law), so he might not really mean
> anything by it. I would not assume il
So, technically, he can't actually add restrictions to the license after
he's license them, and if these are taken to not be part of the license,
you'd be safe to just follow the license as usual.
But if this informal text *is* taken to reflect the intent of the parties,
then it might kind of refl
Hello legal,
So I stumbled upon this rather interesting case of a software licensed by
GPL2 but with an extra "clause" to it:
"
# If you enclose this script or parts of it in your software, it has to
# be accompanied by the same license (see link) and the place where to get
# the recent version of
8 matches
Mail list logo
