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 incompatibly licensed library and build it, that is their prerogative. The things that link to ghostscript as a library will now need to be evaluated. If they are contacted via network ports, they'll need to have source download capabilities added.
Right. I was worried about that. This would make all programs that satisfy this instantly non-license compliant (RC-buggy with threat of being removed from the archive?) when AGPL'ed ghostscript is uploaded. (OTOH Ubuntu apparently did not care for 14.04, because Ghostscript there is already AGPL.) Unless we argue that we do not actually run the software and it's the users' responsibility to get into compliance. And that's the thing I'd heavily disagree with. And we'd suddenly need more infrastructure to actually allow those source downloads (and how much source? just Ghostscript? but the whole thing is transitively AGPL now!).
So I only checked very carelessly right now, but it does not seem like that software actually exists. I see gimp, gle-graphics and texlive-binaries linking against it. And those are not typically network services.
Kind regards Philipp Kern