On 2013-07-04 10:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Stefano Zacchiroli:
I mean, sure, it *is* more tricky to provide such a URL for users that
will be running a *modified* version of INN. But it is exactly the
same
kind of difficulties that people distributing modified copylefted
software will have to face to uphold GPL (or equivalent) terms.
We ship package building software which produces source and binary
packages. You just copy all of them and are compliant.
We currently do not ship a licensing server that helps users with AGPL
compliance.
I guess we'd need a way to repack the source used to build into the
binary, to at least make it possible to add a webserver and serve that.
(Obviously the binary must allow paths to the source configurable in
configuration files.)
My main concern with the license is that compliance is difficult even
for those who have no problem whatsoever with sharing their boring
local changes. I'm concerned that we're heading to the Linux (kernel)
land where Android and others have made GPL compliance a farce.
Like RedHat? ;-)
SCNR
Philipp Kern
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/9e79656e1aacad48bf23129b3a986...@hub.kern.lc
