Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-28 Thread Bill Allombert
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:59:54AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:37:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs. > > I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place. >

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-19 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:37:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs. > I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place. > (please CC me). Actually, I'm thinking it's probably more on-topic on -le

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-15 Thread Bill Allombert
Hello, I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs. I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place. (please CC me). On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:04:49AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > If you modify a GPL-licensed software and distribute the modif

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-14 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:24:38PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software. > > > Doing a simple modifica

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-13 Thread Bill Allombert
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software. > > Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software might require > > you to > > write

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-12 Thread Martin Langhoff
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Toni Mueller wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, 11.11.2009 at 23:46:59 +0100, Martin Langhoff > wrote: >> Yes, this is one of the awkward things I find in the AGPL. If it's not >> a webapp, what then? > > please see this: > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-12 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, On Wed, 11.11.2009 at 23:46:59 +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote: > Yes, this is one of the awkward things I find in the AGPL. If it's not > a webapp, what then? please see this: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLv3InteractingRemotely It could eg. also be network file sys

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-12 Thread Yves-Alexis Perez
Frank Lin PIAT a écrit : > Russell Coker wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >>> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are >>> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that >>> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, S

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-12 Thread Frank Lin PIAT
Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are >> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that >> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot. > > If you co

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-11 Thread Russell Coker
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are > abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that > use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot. If you connect to my SMTP server you w

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-11 Thread Martin Langhoff
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >>    -- The code is modified to interact with the user using a network protocol >>       that does not allow to display a prominent offer. > > This is actually your best argument so far, but I don't think it's > completely true either. Yes

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-11 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > Dear developers, > > I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration. > (this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in > <20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig>) > > Asking for seconds, > (please CC me) > Bil

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-11 Thread Luk Claes
Bill Allombert wrote: > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the > Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting > with it remotely through a computer

GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

2009-11-11 Thread Bill Allombert
Dear developers, I respectfully submit this general resolution proposal to your consideration. (this GR proposal supersedes the proposal in <20090318235044.ga30...@yellowpig>) Asking for seconds, (please CC me) Bill. This General Resolution is made in accordance with Debian Constitution 4.1.5,