On 2013-07-04 09:23:49 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I'm curious, can you elaborate on why as upstream you'd refuse to add > something like a protocol command that return a URL pointing to a > tarball containing the source code of the INN version the users are > running? At times, I'm really surprised by the upfront opposition that > AGPL could get in Free Software cycles and I'd like to understand more > your motives as an upstream.
What about users who patch and rebuild software locally? What should the URL be? (Note that a "file:" URL couldn't even be sufficient, as some software, such as Subversion, can be used remotely without a shell access, so that there may be no way to fetch a "file:" URL without installing a new service.) -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130704120833.ga32...@ioooi.vinc17.net
