Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
I modify it (say to remove the capability of getting source code) and run it
on my own computer, allowing remote users to interact with it. Assuming the
output sent to the users is *not* a derived work (e.g. no AGPLv3 HTML
templates, etc),
(I wrote this message 2007-11-19 and somehow it ended up stuck unsent in an
error mail-queue during a network-outage. I wasn't goign to resend since
this thread is now old, but I didn't see anyone make the same points, so
here it is...)
On Monday 19 November 2007 22:26:21 Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:35:35 +0100, John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For now, as regards the interaction issue my inclination is to
assume that it is implicit in this that (a) we are talking about some
level of direct input/output interaction from the user's point of
view. i.e. software
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:44:52PM +0100, Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen wrote:
So an interactive AGPL program *must* have a prominent way of giving
information to the user. This breaks for any server where the return
format is restricted (web servers should not insert content on
delivered
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:46:57 + John Halton wrote:
[...]
As regards the AGPL web server and other similar
hypotheticals, I think this would come down to user/community
pressure: i.e. if someone chooses a licence that is impractical then
either the software won't find many users, or the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hi all,
the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 has been published today by
the FSF.
The plain text form can be downloaded from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt
The only changes with respect to the Last Call Draft (discussed in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00032.html) are
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:18:10 +0100 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
Section 13 of the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 is quoted below for
reference.
My comments follow.
The usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:18:10PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Hi all,
the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 has been published today by
the FSF.
The plain text form can be downloaded from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt
Thanks for the heads-up.
Do you (or anyone else) happen to know
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
The term user is not clearly defined. If I get an access denied
error page through a browser, am I a user of the web application? When
I visit a portal, am I a user of the browser? Of the portal
application, as well? Of the
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:56:23PM +, John Halton wrote:
Anyway, it's a cost (a significant one, in some cases) associated with
running the modified version of the Program.
No, it's a cost associated with *modifying* the program, as is the
cost of supplying the source code under the
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:56:23 + John Halton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
The term user is not clearly defined.
[...]
Where do we draw the line?
I'm inclined to say, At common sense, taking into account the
intended functionality of the
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:35:35 + John Halton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:18:10PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Hi all,
the final text of the GNU AGPL v3 has been published today by
the FSF.
The plain text form can be downloaded from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.txt
On Monday 19 November 2007 02:56:23 pm John Halton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
The term user is not clearly defined. If I get an access
denied error page through a browser, am I a user of the web
application? When I visit a portal, am I a user of
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 07:26:53PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
And, of course, web applications are often a large set of scripts...
dozens upon dozens of individual scripts. If I write a single new
script that adds some level of functionality, but in no way changes
anything else to the
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:05:21AM +0100, Francesco Poli 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?
Your
25 matches
Mail list logo
