* Howard Chu h...@symas.com [130712 03:51]:
Indeed. If you're a dissident fighting your own government, then
complying with a license that can only be enforced by a government
agency is probably the least of your worries.
Indeed. That's why every interpretation of the dissident test I've
heard
On 2013-07-11 13:41:47 +, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
My understanding though that if Debian is the one making the modification
then Debian is the one responsible for making the source available. If the
end user is then modifying the source then they would subsequently need to
make those
Hi,
with the recent discussion about the AGPLv3 I am wondering what the
implications for users of Debian packages are. Debian packages often contain
modifications in the form of patches, since the Debian project is only a
distributor it complies to the license by making available the sources of
Lars Meyser lars.mey...@yahoo.com writes:
An example that recently came to my attention is Debian's owncloud package,
there seems to be no configuration option to easily add a link to all pages,
so
in order to comply with the AGPLv3 I guess I would have to create my own theme
that displays a
- Original Message -
From: Arto Jantunen vi...@debian.org
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: AGPLv3 Compliance and Debian Users
...
By default installing into a state that isn't compliant
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
It is not that simple, Debian itself complies with the license and users
installing the package comply with the license as long as the network-facing
service is not accessible to other users. To stay with my example, I am in
compliance with
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 11.07.2013, 17:48 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
This is also my personal reading of the license, I would like to hear others
opinions before I start filing bugs.
Perhaps you missed if you modify the Program in item 13.
- Original Message -
From: Paul Wise p...@debian.org
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: AGPLv3 Compliance and Debian Users
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
It is not that simple, Debian itself complies
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
No I did not miss that, but I'm not entirely sure of the implications. So if I
use a packaged version of a program which has been modified (e.g. by Debian
patches) I am not obliged to make the source available?
I'm no expert but that would
On 07/11/2013 14:15, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
No I did not miss that, but I'm not entirely sure of the implications. So if
I
use a packaged version of a program which has been modified (e.g. by Debian
patches) I am not obliged to make the source
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked
about the basis of the network part of the AGPL during the GPLv3 talk
at DebConf10 in NYC, Bradley said the AGPL was specifically based on
modification,
On 11.07.2013 09:12, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 07/11/2013 14:15, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
No I did not miss that, but I'm not entirely sure of the
implications. So if I
use a packaged version of a program which has been modified (e.g.
by Debian
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. Juli 2013, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
My understanding though that if Debian is the one making the
modification then Debian is the one responsible for making the source
available.
I think this is done already, since roughly 20 years, have a look at
ftp.debian.org
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 11.07.2013, 13:41 + schrieb Jeremy T. Bouse:
I would find
having the Debian package install a tarball that could be linked to and
downloadable from the end user to be unnecessary duplication if all that
would be needed would be a link then why not just have that
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:26:47 PM Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 11.07.2013, 17:48 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
This is also my personal reading of the license, I would like to hear
others opinions before I start
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked
about the basis of the network part of the AGPL during the GPLv3 talk
at DebConf10
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:27:31AM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked
about the basis of
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 10:45:00 -0700:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:27:31AM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
I'm no expert but
Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 10:45:00 -0700:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:27:31AM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
I'm no
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 to me (the original author). The
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 to me
]] Howard Chu
[...]
If not, then
what is the point of the AGPL? To protect C-R-U?
I am not suggesting that this is absolutely not modification by Company A.
However, to a non-lawyer like me, it sure _looks_ like a big hole.
I don't see any hole. If C-R-U did the modifications then
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 back
immediately. Nor would we wish any such thing;
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 back
immediately. Nor would
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:27:14PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
That's not the point. The purpose of the Dissident Test is to demonstrate
that distribution channels for software are not necessarily symmetric; it
may be very easy for you to distribute the software, but very
Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's not forget that Al Capone was convicted not for murder, racketeering,
or bootlegging, but for tax evasion; and that the US tax code specifies
where on your tax form you are required to report income from the sale of
illegal drugs. It would be ironic for a dissident
26 matches
Mail list logo
