But even the AGPL does not restrict *use*. The text seems generally uninformed to me, and I wouldn't assume much of anything, especially not when I could communicate with the people who wrote it instead.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 06:20 Giovanni Mascellani <[email protected]> wrote: > Il 13/11/19 01:03, Daniel Hakimi ha scritto: > > But the text is informal and the party seems to not really understand > > the license to begin with (again, he's talking about "use," that's not > > really even relevant to copyright law), so he might not really mean > > anything by it. I would not assume ill intent. It might be worthwhile to > > informally reach out to this community and help develop language that > > just clarifies what the GPL already says, instead of conflicting with > > it. The community might appreciate that. Worst case, they get angry and > > defensive, and attempt to move to a different (presumably proprietary) > > license, in which case, you learned the easy way that they don't play > > nice. Don't learn the hard way. > > The second clause the original email mentions seems to be a request in > the direction of the AGPL license. If they really want to impose code > publication when the software is used to offer a remote service, maybe > they should consider AGPL instead of home-made notices. But maybe they > are not aware of it. If they opt for this way, I don't think that AGPL > has DFSG problems. > > Giovanni. > -- > Giovanni Mascellani <[email protected]> > Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles > >
