Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are
> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that
> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot.
If you connect to my SMTP server you will see a legal disclaimer (which I
claim to be as valid as any that you may see in a .sig). The fact that the
vast majority of SMTP clients don't check for such things should have the
exact same amount of legal relevance as the fact that most Microsoft
customers don't read their EULA.
Now in terms of granting rights, if my mail server contained AGPL code and
this was displayed in the SMTP protocol then a user could connect to it and
discover whether I was using code for which they could demand the source.
It would be entirely reasonable and plausible for someone to admire some
features that were in a running mail server, connect to port 25 with nc or
telnet, see a notification of AGPL code, and then demand a copy of the
http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog