2008/9/13 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
I have been interpreting the AGPL, and so far have not been challenged
on this interpretation, that these additional costs can be transferred
onto third parties for whom the cost
2008/9/11 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So in case this is an unreasonable burden, the GPL *and* AGPL provide
other ways to convey source, like CDs.
How would that satisfy section 13? A CD isn't a network server.
A network server
2008/9/8 Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080907 19:57]:
Hmmm, let???s see: If some company takes a hypothetical AGPL-licensed
variant of OpenOffice, improves it heavily and incompatibly, and it
becomes the new de-facto standard for office document
2008/9/10 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's so non-free about requiring the same network that's providing
the interface to somehow and vaguely facilitate the conveying of the
source?
It's an extra required cost on top of one's use
2008/9/10 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of
providing the network interface that's triggering this clause in the
first place.
This is plainly false: There is, at minimum, additional
2008/9/10 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2008/9/10 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than the cost of
providing the network interface that's
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
The AGPL requires access to source to occur at the time of use,
which is more difficult.
Why? You just have to put a link somewhere source here.
And the link has to go to somewhere where
2008/9/3 Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
I swear I'm not being purposely dense, but I honestly don't understand
how this is any different than the way Debian handles distributing
source for all other packages.
We only distribute source
2008/9/3 MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
2008/9/3 Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/9/3 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't see a conflict with the dissident test either; [...]
I'm not sure it does either, although I note that both Savannah and
Sourceforge (for example) have terms that require one's real name
08:27:14 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
Also, instead of providing a link to where the source can be found,
the embedded device's network interface could say contact this
person, this group, meet me at the docks at 4 AM, come alone and then
that other contact could provide the source over
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
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
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 you.
This is not an issue. A license can't force you to do something that
contradicts a higher law.
-
I was looking at the TinyMCE code distributed by Debian, and I noticed
that some of the source files say all rights reserved, while others
don't have a copyright notice at all.
They include a copy of the LGPL version 2.1 in their distribution, but
there is no clear indication of this applies to
On 29/12/2007, Sylvestre Ledru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:20:14 -0600, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does French law define intellectual property? What does it define it to
be?
Of course, our law defines what is an intellectual property
On 30/12/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
A lot of other local laws don't define intellectual property, but
people use the term anyways as if it were legally defined. It's sad
news to see that France does and that other laws are also doing it.
On 07/12/2007, Sylvestre Ledru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it has been
designed for the french (and european) law which is quite specific about
intellectual property.
Does French law define intellectual property? What does it define it to be?
- Jordi G. H.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On 07/08/07, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11104 March 1977, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
: Why are three words enough to make thousands upon thousands
of words nonfree?
Because it is non-free.
Compare with a source tarball, where one could say But this is just one
twenty
On 06/08/07, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The position statement and the vote all conflate invariant sections
with cover texts and dedications as if exactly the same arguments
against invariant sections applied to a cover text like
On 07/08/07, Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
But we can't modify the COPYING file in a source tarball, and that's
ok. Why isn't a cover text like a GNU manual also acceptable?
It really is not as much the non-modifiable nature
On 06/08/07, Evan Prodromou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-08 at 08:58 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
Can I get an explanation of why Debian considers a GFDL manual with
cover texts non-free?
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
http://www.debian.org
On 20/07/07, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ATATIAAWBI, bla, bla, ...
WTFOMGBTWBBQ?
- Jordi G. H.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
23 matches
Mail list logo
