re is the infamous 'advertising clause'. The
> Regents have however, from my understanding, retroactively
> removed that
> clause from all of their licenses, at the request of the FSF.
> In the HC
> (Howard Chu) and PM (Pierangelo Masarati) there is 'should' do this
> an
o respect your wishes
> regarding acknowledgement so long as we're distributing your code; the
> issue only comes up because the GPL imposes contradictory requirements
> that could prevent us from shipping LDAP-enabled binaries of many GPL
> applications.
I thank you for your c
C-R-U did the modifications then they are obligated
to publish the source code, by virtue of the fact that giving the modified
code to Company A is distributing it.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chi
Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:19:47PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
Right, I want to understand AGPL's motivations is all.
I used to put similar terms on my code, back before the GPL existed.
Essentially: If you modify this code, you must send your
modifications back
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:53:01PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't make it DFSG free (hint: it's likely not)[1][2]
[1]: The Dissident test
[2]: The Desert Island test
Sure, but #2 is stupid. We didn't say "must send changes ba
g your own government, then complying
with a license that can only be enforced by a government agency is probably
the least of your worries.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, Open
6 matches
Mail list logo
