Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > > I thank you for your personal view (which will be useful for software > > where you are a licensor), but this is essentially the same anecdotal > > advocacy which has been covered in previous discussions about AGPLv3. > Well, you should not have raised the topic then. You speculate that a > court will uphold that your overly strict interpretation is correct. > That is even worse.
No, I speculate that a court could uphold such an interpretation. There doesn't seem to be much evidence available about this, so we don't really know the probabilities yet. > > The application download bandwidth costs tend to be disproportionately > > larger than the user service bandwith > > I have trouble seeing how you arrive at this statement. For almost all > services I use, this is not true, in particular not if I only offer > application source to *users*. For example, a PHPBB service page is about 20k, while PHPBB source is 2.19MiB. Which services are you using? > > and - as far as I can tell - it > > is not generally accepted yet that providing a link to your project on > > someone else's hosting site is sufficient [...] > > What does "generally accepted" mean to you here? Ideally, in statement(s) by the licence author or a suitably large number of users of the licence. > I propose that it is no different in the sense that "I put my code on > Savannah for you to download" is no different than "I buy a server with > provider Foo and put the code there". > This is not legal advice, but I don't think you have a court case over a > few days that the download is broken, be it for a typo in the URL or > because you have to switch the provider of this service. I agree that it doesn't matter whether the code is on Savannah or provider Foo, as long as provider Foo isn't also the Program's host. I propose that allowing users to interact remotely while not providing an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source for whatever reason is a breach of the AGPL as written. > > If you know of general acceptance of hosting sites as sufficient, then > > I suspect many people would be interested to learn of it. > > How can I know whether it is sufficient? If you want to, publish > something that interests me under AGPL and sue me for violating your > copyright when I deploy it and provide source via such a service. I've got two formal disputes under way just now and that's two more than I want, so I hope you don't mind if I don't take up your kind offer immediately. > This is not legal advice, but you will lose that. Law is not > mathematics, the scenario you are constructing here is not realistic. I am a statistician more than a mathematician, so I am well aware of probabilities and risk and so forth. Unless someone can show evidence, there seems little reason to assert "you will lose that". Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
