* Howard Chu [130712 03:51]:
> Indeed. If you're a dissident fighting your own government, then
> complying with a license that can only be enforced by a government
> agency is probably the least of your worries.
Indeed. That's why every interpretation of the dissident test I've
heard assumes you
On 2013-07-11 13:41:47 +, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
> My understanding though that if Debian is the one making the modification
> then Debian is the one responsible for making the source available. If the
> end user is then modifying the source then they would subsequently need to
> make those mod
Steve Langasek wrote:
Let's not forget that Al Capone was convicted not for murder, racketeering,
or bootlegging, but for tax evasion; and that the US tax code specifies
where on your tax form you are required to report income from the sale of
illegal drugs. It would be ironic for a dissident to
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:27:14PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> >That's not the point. The purpose of the Dissident Test is to demonstrate
> >that distribution channels for software are not necessarily symmetric; it
> >may be very easy for you to distribute the software, but very
> >hard/expensive/d
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:53:01PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't make it DFSG free (hint: it's likely not)[1][2]
[1]: The Dissident test
[2]: The Desert Island test
Sure, but #2 is stupid. We didn't say "must send changes back
immediately." Nor would
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:53:01PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> >Sure, but that doesn't make it DFSG free (hint: it's likely not)[1][2]
> >[1]: The Dissident test
> >[2]: The Desert Island test
> Sure, but #2 is stupid. We didn't say "must send changes back
> immediately." Nor would we wish any suc
]] Howard Chu
[...]
> >>> If not, then
> >>> what is the point of the AGPL? To protect C-R-U?
> >>>
> >>> I am not suggesting that this is absolutely not modification by Company A.
> >>> However, to a non-lawyer like me, it sure _looks_ like a big hole.
>
> I don't see any hole. If C-R-U did th
Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:19:47PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
Right, I want to understand AGPL's motivations is all.
I used to put similar terms on my code, back before the GPL existed.
Essentially: If you modify this code, you must send your
modifications back to me (the
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:19:47PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
> >Right, I want to understand AGPL's motivations is all.
>
> I used to put similar terms on my code, back before the GPL existed.
> Essentially: If you modify this code, you must send your
> modifications back to me (the original author)
Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 10:45:00 -0700:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:27:31AM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
I'm no
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 10:45:00 -0700:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:27:31AM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > > > > I'm no exp
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:27:31AM -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > > > I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked
> > > > about the b
Excerpts from Richard Fontana's message of 2013-07-11 06:55:12 -0700:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > > I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked
> > > about the basis of the network part of the AGPL during the GPLv3 talk
> > > at D
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:26:47 PM Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 11.07.2013, 17:48 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
> > > This is also my personal reading of the license, I would like to hear
> > > others opinions before I
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 11.07.2013, 13:41 + schrieb Jeremy T. Bouse:
> I would find
> having the Debian package install a tarball that could be linked to and
> downloadable from the end user to be unnecessary duplication if all that
> would be needed would be a link then why not just have th
Hi,
On Donnerstag, 11. Juli 2013, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
> My understanding though that if Debian is the one making the
> modification then Debian is the one responsible for making the source
> available.
I think this is done already, since roughly 20 years, have a look at
ftp.debian.org
c
On 11.07.2013 09:12, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
On 07/11/2013 14:15, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
No I did not miss that, but I'm not entirely sure of the
implications. So if I
use a packaged version of a program which has been modified (e.g.
by Debian
pat
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > I'm no expert but that would be my interpretation. Also when I asked
> > about the basis of the network part of the AGPL during the GPLv3 talk
> > at DebConf10 in NYC, Bradley said the AGPL was specifically based on
> > modificat
On 07/11/2013 14:15, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
>> No I did not miss that, but I'm not entirely sure of the implications. So if
>> I
>> use a packaged version of a program which has been modified (e.g. by Debian
>> patches) I am not obliged to make the s
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
> No I did not miss that, but I'm not entirely sure of the implications. So if I
> use a packaged version of a program which has been modified (e.g. by Debian
> patches) I am not obliged to make the source available?
I'm no expert but that would
- Original Message -
> From: Paul Wise
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:48 AM
> Subject: Re: AGPLv3 Compliance and Debian Users
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
>
>> It is not that simpl
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 11.07.2013, 17:48 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
> > This is also my personal reading of the license, I would like to hear others
> > opinions before I start filing bugs.
>
> Perhaps you missed "if you modify the Program" in i
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Lars Meyser wrote:
> It is not that simple, Debian itself complies with the license and users
> installing the package comply with the license as long as the network-facing
> service is not accessible to other users. To stay with my example, I am in
> compliance wi
- Original Message -
> From: Arto Jantunen
> To: "debian-devel@lists.debian.org"
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:02 AM
> Subject: Re: AGPLv3 Compliance and Debian Users
>
> ...
> By default installing into a state that isn't compliant w
Lars Meyser writes:
> An example that recently came to my attention is Debian's owncloud package,
> there seems to be no configuration option to easily add a link to all pages,
> so
> in order to comply with the AGPLv3 I guess I would have to create my own theme
> that displays a link to the sour
Hi,
with the recent discussion about the AGPLv3 I am wondering what the
implications for users of Debian packages are. Debian packages often contain
modifications in the form of patches, since the Debian project is only a
distributor it complies to the license by making available the sources of th
26 matches
Mail list logo
