Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL
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 interpretation (Ian Jackson said so, for example), the AGPL will
> contaminate texlive, whereas the GPL did not.
>
> Do you see what changed there?
I understand this interpretation, and if my library would be used in such a
way, I would indeed like this to be true. This means that the license change
of gs is relevant for texlive-bin if it must follow this license.
But the fact that it already uses a GPL-incompatible license means that
(according to the upstream and Debian maintainers) the license of gs doesn't
contaminate texlive-bin, and if that is true, it will be exactly the same for
the AGPL.
If that interpretation is correct, it seems like a giant loophole in the AGPL
though.
Thanks,
Bas
Reply to: