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.

> 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*.

> 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 (note that this bug simply
> asks for such a statement from yocto-reader's copyright holders) and
> so disruption of the hosting site requires disruption of user service.

What does "generally accepted" mean to you here?
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.

> 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.
This is not legal advice, but you will lose that. Law is not
mathematics, the scenario you are constructing here is not realistic.

Kind regards

T.
-- 
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to