In article ,
Bas Wijnen wrote:
>On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:44:16PM -0700, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
>> I saw it and I fail to see what exactly they want to achieve with this
>> change since AGPLv3 is for web apps.
>
>I license almost all my work as AGPL, because I like that clause. The idea of
>the
Excerpts from Riley Baird's message of 2014-05-08 14:02:49 -0700:
> >> So if Debian provides, say, a web frontend to Ghostscript, then with
> >> AGPL Ghostscript running that web frontend as a service for others
> >> only require an interface serving its sources if the _webmaster_
> >> changes t
>> So if Debian provides, say, a web frontend to Ghostscript, then with
>> AGPL Ghostscript running that web frontend as a service for others
>> only require an interface serving its sources if the _webmaster_
>> changes the code for that frontend?
>>
>> Not if Debian makes changes to both the f
Excerpts from Don Armstrong's message of 2014-05-08 12:06:08 -0700:
> On Thu, 08 May 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 May 2014, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> > > In my interpretation in this case I would have some reasonable time
> > > to comply, i.e. I don't have to publish all 0days on my site
Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-05-08 21:55:45)
> * Jonas Smedegaard , 2014-05-08, 21:37:
>> So if Debian provides, say, a web frontend to Ghostscript, then with
>> AGPL Ghostscript running that web frontend as a service for others
>> only require an interface serving its sources if the _webmaster_
>>
* Jonas Smedegaard , 2014-05-08, 21:37:
So if Debian provides, say, a web frontend to Ghostscript, then with
AGPL Ghostscript running that web frontend as a service for others only
require an interface serving its sources if the _webmaster_ changes the
code for that frontend?
Not if Debian ma
Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> So if Debian provides, say, a web frontend to Ghostscript, then with
> AGPL Ghostscript running that web frontend as a service for others only
> require an interface serving its sources if the _webmaster_ changes the
> code for that frontend?
> Not if Debian makes c
Quoting Don Armstrong (2014-05-08 21:06:08)
> On Thu, 08 May 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 May 2014, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> > > In my interpretation in this case I would have some reasonable time
> > > to comply, i.e. I don't have to publish all 0days on my site if I
> > > run AGPL-cov
On Thu, 08 May 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2014, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> > In my interpretation in this case I would have some reasonable time
> > to comply, i.e. I don't have to publish all 0days on my site if I
> > run AGPL-covered software..
You only have to publish code to user
On 2014-05-08 00:13, Clint Byrum wrote:
We don't ensure that users comply, we simply start them in a position
of compliance. If they change what we've given them, it is their
responsibility to remain in compliance. For the same reason, if they
modify the source of a program to link to an incompat
> So please excuse my ignorance here: But how does that work? How can we,
> as Debian, ensure that a user automatically complies with the license
> when a package is installed and spawns up a service on a port? (Or
> similarly, installs itself into a web server found on the system.)
I don't think
Excerpts from Philipp Kern's message of 2014-05-07 15:00:43 -0700:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 12:57:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL"):
> > > Does that mean that people calling one of these from a s
> Yes. But this isn't as bad as you think, because the source
> availability requirement exists only if you modify the AGPL'd
> software.
I don't think that this is the case. Firstly, because it leaves a
practical loophole in the AGPL:
-Person A takes some software under the AGPL.
-Person A priv
On Wed, 7 May 2014 15:56:06 +0200 Bálint Réczey wrote:
> 2014-05-07 14:37 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser :
> > On Wed, 7 May 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> >> Yes. But this isn't as bad as you think, because the source
> >> availability requirement exists only if you modify the AGPL'd
> >> software.
>
On Wed, 7 May 2014 00:05:51 +0200 Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Ghostscript have changed its license from GPL-3+ to AGPL-3+ since
> > version 9.07.
I am really disappointed and worried by this license switch... :-(
Even though the
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 12:57:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL"):
> > Does that mean that people calling one of these from a script or a web
> > service (e.g. invoices using texlive-bin) will need to adher
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> texlive-bin uses the software (gs), As you, yourself, said, the
> difference between the AGPL and the GPL is that the AGPL protects the
> user, not only the people that download the software. This means that by
> some interpr
On 07/05/2014 18:59, Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
>>> * texlive-bin (texlive-binaries)
>>
>> Actually with this one is worst, since the LPPL is not compatible with
>> the GPL, lets not even talk about GPLv3 or AGPLv3 :-/
>
> If it's incompatible with the GPL and the way they distributed it was
> accept
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 06:44:16PM -0700, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
> I saw it and I fail to see what exactly they want to achieve with this
> change since AGPLv3 is for web apps.
I license almost all my work as AGPL, because I like that clause. The idea of
the GPL is to make sure that all end users
Hi,
2014-05-07 14:37 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser :
> On Wed, 7 May 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> Yes. But this isn't as bad as you think, because the source
>> availability requirement exists only if you modify the AGPL'd
>> software.
>
> Which you may want to do, in order to patch a security issue
On Wed, 7 May 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Yes. But this isn't as bad as you think, because the source
> availability requirement exists only if you modify the AGPL'd
> software.
Which you may want to do, in order to patch a security issue
you just found, locally, before filing it upstream.
Or be
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL"):
> Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL"):
> > Does that mean that people calling one of these from a script or a web
> > service (e.g. invoices using texlive-bin) wil
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL"):
> Does that mean that people calling one of these from a script or a web
> service (e.g. invoices using texlive-bin) will need to adhere to the
> AGPL as well?
Yes. But this isn't as bad as you t
Hi Jonas,
On 06/05/14, 11:05am, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Ghostscript have changed its license from GPL-3+ to AGPL-3+ since
> version 9.07.
>
> Ghostscript includes a library - libgs9 - licensed as AGPL-3+ like the
> rest of the project. It also includes a set of Type1 fonts apparently¹
> lice
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Ghostscript have changed its license from GPL-3+ to AGPL-3+ since
> version 9.07.
I guess given that GPL-3+ would've been a problem in itself already and
given that GPL-3 and AGPL-3 are compatible, that there can't be that
many p
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL"):
...
> Seems that these projects may link against Ghostscript, and therefore
> (possibly) effectively becomes AGPL-3+ with this change:
Thanks for looking into this and bringing it to our attention.
Do you know w
On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 11:05:11AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> AGPL Ghostscript is now in experimental. How to proceed?
Upload to unstable since there's no actual problem?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact l
Ghostscript have changed its license from GPL-3+ to AGPL-3+ since
version 9.07.
Ghostscript includes a library - libgs9 - licensed as AGPL-3+ like the
rest of the project. It also includes a set of Type1 fonts apparently¹
licensed the same.
I've tried² suggest relicensing of the library part,
28 matches
Mail list logo
