[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

On Thu, 08 May 2014, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2014, Bálint Réczey wrote:
> > In my interpretation in this case I would have some reasonable time
> > to comply, i.e. I don't have to publish all 0days on my site if I
> > run AGPL-covered software..

You only have to publish code to users who are interacting with that
code. If you're deploying 0 day fixes to the internet, then you're going
to have to provide access to the same code so that other people can take
advantage of your fixes.

> On Wed, 7 May 2014, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > 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.

This is incorrect. They only need to have this in place if they modify
the AGPLed work.
> On Thu, 8 May 2014, Riley Baird wrote:
> > What if the network in question is not the internet?
> Right, the AGPL is not technology-neutral.

The AGPL just specifies "computer network" and "network server". It says
nothing about the internet at all.

Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

"Because," Fee-5 explained patiently, "I was born in the fifth row.
Any fool would understand that, but against stupidity the very Gods
themselves contend in vain."
 -- Alfred Bester _The Computer Connection_ p19

Reply to: