Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)
On Thu, 12.11.2009 at 12:51:56 +0100, Gabor Gombas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 01:07:24PM -0800, Rodrigo Gallardo wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:41:31PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > > -- The code is modified to interact with the user using a network protocol
> > > > that does not allow to display a prominent offer.
> > >
> > > Any example of this?
> > One could add an IMAP interface to a blog management system, allowing
> > one to post from an email client.
> RFC 3501, 7.1. Server Responses - Status Responses
> That's how warnings like "your mailbox is near quota" work today.
my reading of the license is that it does not even require that the
user notification has to be incorporated into the program that is being
modified, but can instead eg. be done on any accompanying "advertising
material", like a project's web site.
If this reading would be confirmed, then the effect of notifying the
user would be actually non-existent.