* Hugo Roy [29 08:35]:
> Anyway, what I am looking for is more specific:
>
> > > Since I promised I'd mention DFSG-compliance-or-not: some
> > > debian-legal regulars disagree with the ftpmasters' decision to
> > > allow AGPL software into Debian. I personally think the AGPL is a
> > > Free li
Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 15:26 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> * Hugo Roy [29 08:35]:
> > Anyway, what I am looking for is more specific:
> >
> > > > Since I promised I'd mention DFSG-compliance-or-not: some
> > > > debian-legal regulars disagree with the ftpmasters' decision to
> > > >
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:25 AM, "Hugo Roy" wrote:
> I am talking of the freedom to distribute copies of the program.
> If you restrict that freedom to specific people that is clearly
> not free software, and that is totally consistent with RMS' l,
> definition as well.
The GPL provides c
On 24 November 2011 13:08, Clark C. Evans wrote:
> Free and open source software can be used without
> restriction on proprietary platforms, yet, the reverse
> isn't true. If a open source application is useful
> enough, it'll be ported to Windows or OSX. As a result,
> proprietary operating sys
Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 10:24 -0500, Clark C. Evans a écrit :
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:25 AM, "Hugo Roy" wrote:
> > I am talking of the freedom to distribute copies of the program.
> > If you restrict that freedom to specific people that is clearly
> > not free software, and that is
* Hugo Roy [29 16:05]:
> > Which is a restriction on running the software. The GPL has no
> > restriction on running, it has only restrictions on distribution.
> > What good is it that I am allowed to share modifications to software
> > if I am not allowed to run it?
>
> I don't understand wha
Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 17:38 +0100, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> Say I have a blog, that is created by some software. Assume that
> software contains AGPL code. Am I allowed to run a server that only
> serves my blog without paying for anything or anyone else?
> With AGPL the answer is no. Thu
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:25 PM, Francesco Poli wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:11:29 + Simon McVittie wrote:
> > The tl:dr version: just use the GPL, or the AGPL if you must.
>
> My summary is somewhat similar: please just use the GNU GPL,
> and nothing more restrictive than that (I don't thin
"Clark C. Evans" writes:
> Free Software Problems: I think this is a free software license, and
> if it isn't, let's fix it.
I think your desired effects for the license are not compatible with
software freedom, as discussed earlier.
> Did I miss anything? I'd prefer to continue this very helpf
9 matches
Mail list logo
