Re: Berkeley DB 6.0 license change to AGPLv3
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:03:20PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 03:50:03PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > There is just one caveat: you must make sure to never, ever, distribute that
> > piece of software, because once you do, you permanently lose your right to
> > use it without obnoxious and potentially crippling restrictions.
>
> Not right. You have to allow _access_ to it via a computer network.
Which you can do without distributing the code, thus accepting the license
is not required. You can _run_ the code you received, just not distribute
it to third parties.
> > That's section 9 of AGPL v3.
>
> Please read section 9 of GPL v3, it is identical.
Yes, you can run code under regular GPL without accepting is as well; which
is a moot point as the GPL contains no use restrictions.
> > Per section 13, any derived software that "supports remote interaction
> > through a computer network" must present a prominent offer to every user,
> > no matter if that's feasible or possible.
>
> You miss a vital part of this sentence: "(if your version supports such
> interaction)".
An IMAP server does support remote interaction through a computer network.
> Please quote complete sentences if you try to proof something.
I did, replacing the word "such" with the definition it refers to, mentioned
before the text I quoted.
> > The official FTPmaster response came in #495721, and it doesn't even
> > mention this issue, only three minor points (cost of running a webserver
> > with sources, private use, contaminating reverse dependencies).
>
> GPL also contaminates its reverse dependencies. So what? Okay, in this
> case you actually have to do something for it.
Any license without a linking exception contaminates parts that rely on it,
and so does copying fragments of code. You include a single function under
a BSD license? You need to fulfill its requirements, ie keep the notices,
forever, as long as you keep including that function. That's why this is
not a relevant argument against AGPL But none of the above three points
are what I'm talking about here.
> > Thus, could someone please explain, are there any arguments that
> > forbidding reuse with any protocols that don't support sending bulk
> > ancillary text would be free?
>
> Okay, you did not read it.
What?
Please point me to any other license in main that has an _use_ restriction.
You often have to jump through hops as for what kind of modifications remain
distributable, but no DFSG-free license restricts:
* local modifications
* use
--
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ
Reply to: