Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if the application on top of the stack is just a thin broker layer and any useful functionality is hidden in a backend that never *directly* interacts with public users remotely through a computer network? Apologies for

GPLv3 compatible with OpenSSL?

2007-11-20 Thread Matej Vela
Hi, Is GPLv3 compatible with the OpenSSL license? According to Wikipedia [1], the OpenSSL license clauses that were problematic for GPLv2... 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: This product

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Iain Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing we did not change is the phrase interacting with [the software] remotely through a computer network. Many commenters expressed concern that this would include not only traditional GUIs that users manipulate for web-based

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Iain Nicol
Hi, On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:40:09 +0100, John Halton wrote: Do you (or anyone else) happen to know if the FSF has given any guidance on what they regard as interaction over a network? This is an issue that came up in the previous thread. It looks like the FSF want this interpreted as broadly

Re: GPLv3 compatible with OpenSSL?

2007-11-20 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 20 novembre 2007 à 12:10 +0100, Matej Vela a écrit : Is GPLv3 compatible with the OpenSSL license? I don't think so. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgment: This product includes software

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 01:07:14 am John Halton wrote: So to use an example that I'm most familiar with, if you have a Wordpress installation running on top of a LAMP stack then neither Linux, Apache, MySQL nor PHP is itself capable of providing access to its source for remote users. Each

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:01:09 -0600 Iain Nicol wrote: [meaning of interaction over a network] It looks like the FSF want this interpreted as broadly as possible. Thanks for the pointer. On the other hand, I've found the following GPLv3 FAQ[1]: | In AGPLv3, what counts as interacting with

Re: GPLv3 compatible with OpenSSL?

2007-11-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:58:28 +0100 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mardi 20 novembre 2007 à 12:10 +0100, Matej Vela a écrit : Is GPLv3 compatible with the OpenSSL license? I don't think so. Agreed. And the FSF seems to agree, as well. They consider the OpenSSL license as incompatible with the

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a user of a website running the stack I'm really interacting with two things... the browser which presents all this pretty buttons and links... and the apache server by means of HTTP requests. It's the server which then goes and talks

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Walter Landry
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I've said before, I have some hesitations about the AGPL and its possible consequences. However, we shouldn't underestimate the effects of community pressure to help counteract the potential problems: if the AGPL is (ab)used in an inappropriate way by a

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread John Halton
On 20/11/2007, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are also examples where a company did not do anything until they were served with legal papers. If you are only going to resort to community pressure, then you might as well just make it a non-binding request rather than a legal

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Sean Kellogg
On Tuesday 20 November 2007 10:50:32 am John Halton wrote: On 20/11/2007, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a user of a website running the stack I'm really interacting with two things... the browser which presents all this pretty buttons and links... and the apache server by

Referring to upstream copyright statement from debian/copyright

2007-11-20 Thread Zack Weinberg
I have a closely related question to the one posed in the thread started at http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/11/msg00214.html My package has a fairly complicated constellation of copyright holders and licenses, and upstream has been helpful and provided a comprehensive statement in their

Re: Final text of AGPL v3

2007-11-20 Thread Francesco Poli
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:29:38 -0800 Sean Kellogg wrote: [...] Oy... this doesn't seem like it's going anywhere good. They should have just written a license that says you must give back your changes, even if you don't distribute and just called it good... Like they did with GFDL's

Is this translation in the Public Domain?

2007-11-20 Thread Mohammad Derakhshani
Hi all, I am involved in the packaging of an Urdu translation of Qur'an for Zekr http://packages.debian.org/sid/zekr. This Urdu translation is made by Ahmed Rida Khan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Rida_Khan Although the author died in 1921, I am not sure if the translation is in the

Re: Referring to upstream copyright statement from debian/copyright

2007-11-20 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:58:10PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: or should I be pasting the entire text of AUTHORS into debian/copyright? Yes you should. The promise we make in Policy is that the copyright and licensing status of the package is provided in the debian/copyright file, and the