Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> wrote: >> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are >> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that >> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot. > > If you connect to my SMTP server you will see a legal disclaimer (which I > claim to be as valid as any that you may see in a .sig). [..] > Now in terms of granting rights, if my mail server contained AGPL code > and this was displayed in the SMTP protocol then a user could connect > to it and discover whether I was using code for which they could demand > the source.
I disagree with your interpretation. The AGPL states "prominently offer all users", displaying at protocol level doesn't comply with either "prominently" nor with "all users" (because only a few sysadmins will telnet to port 25.) Such offer should be on SMTP *and* on the website offering this service. (Would you consider it valid if the offer were included in HTTP headers?) /me don't like AGPL, especially due to the way linked/combined code is contaminated. I hate the way FSF made an exception for GPL-v3, and not for "any compatible license". That's proprietary sh*t. Regards, Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
