Follow-up Comment #12, task #14667 (project administration): > Recently I have stated that libags_server.so is licensed under the terms of the GNU AGPLv3+. The person corrected me and told we license source files and not binaries.
*The* person? Who were they? Certainly you can distribute binaries under the AGPLv3, it has specific provisions for that case <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#section6>; if you do, these binaries are licensed under the terms of the GNU AGPLv3. > You are complaining about copyright of generated files. I think it is questionable if you can license them at all. I believe I can. When people download a binary installer, it usually comes with a message saying the terms of use of the program it installs, that is, license. Why do you think generated files are not licensable? > Another problem is more that as you run `autoreconf -fi` new versions of the files are going to be installed. So copyright notice would be in first instance misleading. I again misunderstand you. Please elaborate: how would it be misleading? > Recently I read about RMS arguing with free software license you should obtain a patent, too. Is this yet solved? I'm not sure what you are speaking about. Could you share a link? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14667> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/
