On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:47:59 +0200 Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Francesco,
Hi.
Am 2008-08-29 23:56:56, schrieb Francesco Poli:
If you're really worried about this, upload it to two different free
VCS
services.
They still may be off-line at the same time: it's less likely, but
* Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080921 11:20]:
Maybe making source available from a public hosting service with 100
mirrors worldwide suffices. The probability of having *all* the
mirrors unreachable at the same time is really close to zero (even
though not zero).
Unless those are
Hello Francesco,
Am 2008-08-29 23:56:56, schrieb Francesco Poli:
If you're really worried about this, upload it to two different free
VCS
services.
They still may be off-line at the same time: it's less likely, but
still possible.
And therefore I have *two* services to monitor, to
Am 2008-08-28 10:46:58, schrieb MJ Ray:
So the PySol project wants to use the AGPLv3 and the forced
distribution of source code is a desirable effect, but it's
distributed on the non-free most-source-unavailable Launchpad webapp?
I am missing words for it... :-/
Thanks, Greetings and nice
Sorrx for the late answer but found your message blocked in my incoming
queue...
Am 2008-08-20 22:25:37, schrieb David Martínez Martí:
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 19:53:46 Arc Riley wrote:
At the risk of repeating myself, I don't believe this technical challenge
of reliably hosting code
* Davi Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080915 20:55]:
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Is it so hard for your to understand, that not being able to run
modified services secretly is a restriction?
Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only the
binary of a modified Linux kernel
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of the license. If there
are remaining questions, they should be asked.
The following questions remain unanswered and are interesting to me.
Whenever these have been posted, the answers have been qualified to
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:24:52 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
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
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 is
* Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080915 18:25]:
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
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Is it so hard for your to understand, that not being able to run
modified services secretly is a restriction?
Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only the
binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is a
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only
the
binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code) is
a
rectriction?
I think at this point we're all clear on the terms of
2008/9/15 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Davi Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it so hard for you understand, that not being able to distribute only
the
binary of a modified Linux kernel (without distributing its source code)
is a
rectriction?
I think at
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:54 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
2008/9/10 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso 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.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
there are other ways you can satisfy clause 13, namely, the usual
channels of distribution that the GPL provides, plus a trivial network
server to indicate those other ways.
The license does not require you
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One's modification and distribution over a network of that software,
let's be explicit. 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.
I don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arc Riley wrote:
I agree, which is why we chose the AGPLv3 for our project.
I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are
arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's
freedom to exploit the ASP loophole.
I've
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One's modification and distribution over a network of that software,
let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than
the cost of providing the network
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 09:19 -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One's modification and distribution over a network of that
software,
let's be
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It has already been made clear that you're not required to
distribute the modified source on the same network connection as the
remote interaction.
Has it? I haven't seen how anything but convey the corresponding
source at the same time and from the same
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Karl Goetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose the following scenario:
Someone gives you a CD with debian, and you install the weblog tool,
which happens to be agpl.
Your internet connection is two way satalite, 500mb/month, data both
directions costs, and it
2008/9/11 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You just changed it.
You now have to make it available (with its dependancies? i'm not sure).
No. It is neither standard nor customary to re-release an entire package
for a small bugfix. You could just upload a patch to the project's mailing
list and
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One's modification and distribution over a network of that software,
let's be explicit. And I argue that this extra cost is no greater than
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, such as the
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the two licenses are nearly identical, then surely the difference
in the effect of the license terms is important enough that the FSF
promotes the AGPL on the basis of that difference. To do otherwise is
to argue against the very license proliferation
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
Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, let’s see: If some company takes a hypothetical AGPL-licensed
variant of OpenOffice [...] put it on terminal servers, maybe with
expensive access ...
... then, in the spirit of Free Software, I’ll be thankful that due to
the AGPL I, as a user,
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 of the software.
Lawyers will have to decide, but
2008/9/10 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here, unless
you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two licenses
are nearly identical, after all.
A single sentence, even a single word, can change everything in a
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 of the
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyways, I don't think the good intentions are misguided here,
unless you want to argue that the GPL itself is misguided. The two
licenses are nearly identical, after all.
If the two licenses are nearly identical, then surely the difference
in
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 of the
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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?
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
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 triggering this clause in
the first place.
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
* 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 exchange ??? but
they don???t distribute it, but
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 03.09.2008, 20:13 +0200 schrieb Francesco Poli:
If being usable in an SSH session counts as supporting remote
interaction through a computer network, then basically every program
supports such interaction! This would mean that any AfferoGPLv3'ed
program must comply with
I agree, which is why we chose the AGPLv3 for our project.
I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are
arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's
freedom to exploit the ASP loophole.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Joachim Breitner [EMAIL
Arc Riley wrote:
I agree, which is why we chose the AGPLv3 for our project.
I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are
arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's
freedom to exploit the ASP loophole.
I've gotten that impression too.
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list
are arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain
people's freedom to exploit the ASP loophole.
You're seeing a different discussion from what I'm seeing, then.
The
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
I've gotten the impression, though, that many people on this list are
arguing against the AGPL on the basis that they want to retain people's
freedom to exploit the ASP loophole.
I don't believe anyone here has argued that people exploiting the ASP
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 the
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
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
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 at
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We
(generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped
distributing the binary. The AGPL requires distribution of source at
any time that the
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 that matters for the AGPL? Are you
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
The AGPLv3 only requires the distribution of /modified/ source.
The things that Debian distributes which are not modified are
vanishingly small (and all of the examples I can think of are cases
where Debian Developers are the upstream too.) So we're going to
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
MJ Ray wrote:
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
notify anyone in particular,
2008/9/3 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We only distribute source at the instant we distribute the binary. We
(generally[1]) don't distribute the source after we've stopped
distributing the binary. The AGPL requires
2008/9/3 Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
released, MJ Ray's concerns are quite real and they're something to
think about quite seriously.
I meant Don's concerns, sorry.
Greetings,
Miry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
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 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.
Which services allow anonymous hosting?
I
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.
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test?
The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source
distribution passes the test, but only that it's possible to pass the test.
The life of a dissident is a complicated and difficult
2008/9/3 Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
Would you consider that anonymous enough to pass the dissident test?
The dissident test does not require that every possible method of source
distribution passes the test, but only that it's possible to pass the test.
I know. The
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:27:14 -0500 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
[...]
If on the other hand you let the other user interact with your laptop
through a network (say, they ssh into it), then clause 13 of the AGPL
applies.
I am not following you here.
Section 13 of the AfferoGPLv3 states, in
2008/9/3 Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If being usable in an SSH session counts as supporting remote
interaction through a computer network, then basically every program
supports such interaction!
You're right, ssh was a bad example, probably not covered by clause 13.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008
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
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
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
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
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:00:58 +0200
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:53:09 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Is there a generally-accepted statement from FSF that a free VCS
solution is sufficient, or is this interpretation only valid for
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:56:56 +0200
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:15:48 -0400 Arc Riley wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Francesco Poli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
The problem is:
what happens if the VCS goes off-line for one afternoon
(or for
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:50:51 +0100
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the previously-available modified copy that you are using goes
offline, does one then have to post the source?
The same as with the GPL. If upstream disappears you have to stop
distributing unless you provide the source
2008/9/1 Daniel Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
AGPLv3 may or may not be free, but as the discussion goes on I am
finding the arguments against it less credible as they seem to be
invoking 'problems' that are not really problems.
Some of the problems might be important anyway. I'll sum up my
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of the problems might be important anyway. I'll sum up my
personal concerns. Say I want to create a 3D virtual world based on
the IRC network, using PySoy as the base framework for that, PySoy
being AGPLv3 will force
2008/9/1 Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2) Spam everyone I interact with, saying the client I'm using and how
to get the full source code.
The license does not say you must advertise, only that you must prominently
offer. In your example of an IRC network, providing a source URL with CTCP
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, but they'll have your IP, which is (at least in my country)
personal information. In any case it is enough for someone to be able
to find you, so you won't be really anonymous. Think about China, for
example.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an American, I cannot export cryptographic software. As a result, I
don't work on it.
That doesn't prevent me from building or modifying software that utilizes
those components, as those components are imported.
And
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 01:49:38PM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez 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 you.
This is not an
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These are technical challenges, not legal problems, and will be solved by the
community as the need arises. I'd say in the next year or two free VCS
services will allow people to register new branches to existing projects.
There is already a limited form
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008, Arc Riley wrote:
As an American, I cannot export cryptographic software. As a result,
I don't work on it.
That doesn't prevent me from building or modifying software that
utilizes those components, as those components are imported.
You still have to arrange to convey
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008, Jordi Gutiérrez 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 you.
This is not an issue. A license can't
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Ian Jackson wrote:
Miriam Ruiz writes (Is AGPLv3 DFSG-free?):
Do you think AGPLv3 is DFSG-free?
Yes. The source-transmission requirement is hardly onerous,
It's probably not onerous, but it's certainly non-trivial. The class
of things that fall under Corresponding
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.
-
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 05:39:59 -0400 Daniel Dickinson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:00:58 +0200
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
The problem is:
what happens if the VCS goes off-line for one afternoon
(or for one night, for a couple of days, for a week, ..., forever)?
Am I
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 12:03:04 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:
[...]
4c) Through a public server, having to identify myself (thus, I
wouldn't be able to remain anonymous)
The real problem would not be anonymity (which could be reached via
technical measures: onion routing, anonymous remailers, nym
Miriam Ruiz wrote:
davi.leals wrote:
Just host the source code at Savannah or any other similar service.
How does that scale when a lot of users modify or customize the code?
Arc Riley wrote:
These are technical challenges, not legal problems, and will be solved by
the community as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miriam Ruiz wrote: [...]
And, how can one do that and at the same time keep being anonymous
(dissident test)?
If you do not modify the code or you do not have remote users, you do not
have
to offer your copy of the Source Code.
= you cannot modify the webapp =
Francesco Poli wrote:
I think you chose the wrong example: the written offer possibility
(clause 3b in GPLv2, clause 6b in GPLv3) is a non-free path through the
GPL.
In other words, if making the written offer were the *only* way to
distribute GPL'd object code, the GPL would *not* meet the
* Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080828 10:53]:
Since anyone can get a free, anonymous account at any number of free VCS
solutions, and since a dissident only need share source with those they're
already permitting remote access over a network to, I do not see any
situation where this would
Arc Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This thread has slipped into absurdity.
That largely seems to be the result of talking past each other.
These fringe cases with the viewpoint that free software copyright
holders are just biting at the bit to take people to court
retroactively for
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
