On 10/06/14 22:26, Kuno Woudt wrote:
I assume FullContentRSS has the copyright on their own software, and can
license it as they want. Including selling it to you under AGPLv3,
while not offering a download themselves for their users.
I find it difficult to work out why someone would use the
The downside of the GPL for networked programs is that someone can
receive the program, modify it to strip references to you out of the
output, improve it, and then host a competitor. There is no legal
issue as long as they don't redistribute.
The AGPL is supposed to avoid this issue. Because
On 11/06/14 22:24, Ben Tilly wrote:
The AGPL is supposed to avoid this issue. Because now they have to
acknowledge you, adn let you see their improvements.
Not really about freedom then. They lose the freedom to hide their
upgrades, but you don't. The tactic may be within the rules, but it
Free / open source software like freedom, not like free beer :-)
No FOSS license prohibits making some money out of all the work done...
P-E
2014-06-10 7:51 GMT+02:00 ChanMaxthon xcvi...@me.com:
I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun
On 6/9/2014 10:11 PM, ldr ldr wrote:
Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
script as you want. However you can get the script for $20.
Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?
Yes.
The primary reason most FLOSS is distributed gratis, is because FLOSS
On 10/06/14 06:51, ChanMaxthon wrote:
I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.
I think people are missing the point here. Assuming the requestor has
used the service, this is a clear violation of clause 13 of the AGPL,
and, if allowed would make the AGPL
Hi,
On 10-06-14 16:10, David Woolley wrote:
On 10/06/14 06:51, ChanMaxthon wrote:
I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.
I think people are missing the point here. Assuming the requestor has
used the service, this is a clear violation of clause 13 of the AGPL,
Here is an excerpt from the response I received:
Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
script as you want. However you can get the script for $20.
Is that congruent with the AGPL3 license?
___
License-discuss mailing
I believe it is perfectly fine. RMS himself even *encourage* that.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 10, 2014, at 13:11, ldr ldr stackoverflowuse...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is an excerpt from the response I received:
Yes, FullContentRSS is an AGPL3 script, you can use and/or modify the
script as
9 matches
Mail list logo
