Francesco Poli wrote:
In the case of the AfferoGPLv3, I am *not* already distributing
software.
But you are distributing some sort of data - otherwise the person using
the software would not be interacting with it. Interaction requires
exchange of data.
I modified the application and simply
Christofer C. Bell wrote:
As the AGPLv3 will force you, from the United States, to offer
cryptographic software for export in the event that you modify server
software using it and (make that software available for interaction
over a network), it is forcing you to violate US law.
Making
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it were just running on your server, there would be no distribution
requirement. But it is running on your server and sending and receiving
data from the user, which is different.
This is the core of the issue. If
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 01:49:38PM -0500, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
2008/9/1 Christofer C. Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The AGPLv3 requires you to re-export that code in the event that you
modify server software using it -- even if exporting crypto is illegal
for
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and
act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance
with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee.
That leaves the rest of the license intact.
* Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080902 11:23]:
In these cases, all it's doing is ensuring that the users of the software
are granted the four software freedoms.
It's not the users of the software, it's the users of services run by
the software.
We do not view this as a use
restriction, as the
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
It's not the users of the software, it's the users of services run by
the software.
But in today's world, that's no longer a meaningful distinction.
It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I
interacted with the services provided by that software
2008/9/2 Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It used to be that software ran on a computer on my desk, and I
interacted with the services provided by that software using the
attached monitor and keyboard. Now, I interact with the services
provided by software that runs on a computer somewhere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I filed bug#488766 some months ago with no response from maintainer.
Could I please have some more eyeballs on that: Am I right that Redland
violates GPL?
Or is it ok since Redland is dual-licensed, so it should simply always
be considered as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi again,
Thanks for the quick response!
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:57:40PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Tue Sep 02 14:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Currently morla (ITP bug#431824) cannot be packaged as it is GPL.
Should I convince upstream
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and
act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance
with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee.
That leaves the rest of
severity 488766 wishlist
retitle 488766 librdf0-dev: Please provide gnutls flavor
thanks
On Tue Sep 02 14:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi,
I filed bug#488766 some months ago with no response from maintainer.
Could I please have some more eyeballs on that: Am I right that Redland
violates
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What about point 12?
What about it? A finding by a court that a GPL clause is severable
or that I am excused from complying with it is not a condition in
the sense of article 12.
OK, I trust you in this, but shouldn't we wait for a court to
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two points:
1) Is this software DFSG-free?
2) Does putting it into Debian have unfortunate practical consequences?
In pursuit of an answer to question 1, I was making the point that there
is no longer a meaningful distinction or bright line
MJ Ray wrote:
1. Along similar lines, one question I keep returning to is
Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my
expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the
DFSG?
It doesn't require you to give them a copy. It requires you to offer
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
1. Along similar lines, one question I keep returning to is
Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my
expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the
DFSG?
It doesn't require you
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080902 11:23]:
In these cases, all it's doing is ensuring that the users of the software
are granted the four software freedoms.
It's not the users of the software, it's the users of
The BRIC Telecoms Report ndash; The 4 largest Emerging Markets Compared,
Analysed Forecast
- New Report - OUT TODAY -
Brazil, Russia, India and China are regarded as the four biggest emerging
markets. Between the end of 2001 and the end of 2007, BRIC nations added 660
million
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Not necessarily. A court may find the illegal clause severable and
act as if that clause wasn't there. Or it may rule that compliance
with the clause in question cannot be demanded from the licensee.
That leaves the rest of the license intact.
A
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
2008/9/2 Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What about it? A finding by a court that a GPL clause is severable
or that I am excused from complying with it is not a condition in
the sense of article 12.
OK, I trust you in this, but shouldn't we wait for a court to
2008/9/2 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Would a licence that required me to give a copy of the source at my
expense if I let someone use the application on my laptop meet the
DFSG?
Why is this a question that matters for the AGPL? Are you saying that
the condition of distributing source over a
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Gervase Markham wrote:
If it's a small embedded system, the source code is likely also to be
small. Or is this a combination of the small embedded system objection
and the gigabytes of modified source objection?
This problem could actually arise for the GPL too. Consider a
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only
to those who ask.
The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do
to the binaries, which is something that is easily solvable using the
same distribution
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
You don't have to give source to every user of your software, only
to those who ask.
The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we do
to the binaries,
And doesn't the AGPL too?
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The GPL allows us to provide equivalent access to the source as we
do to the binaries,
And doesn't the AGPL too? Both the program and the source over the
network?
No, it requires distribution of
25 matches
Mail list logo
