Quoting Don Armstrong (2014-05-08 21:06:08) > 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. So if Debian provides, say, a web frontend to Ghostscript, then with AGPL Ghostscript running that web frontend as a service for others only require an interface serving its sources if the _webmaster_ changes the code for that frontend? Not if Debian makes changes to both the frontend and AGPL Ghostscript? That seems like a loophole to me: If Google wants an advantage by running better-than-ghostscript.google.com PDF convertor, they can simply let another company/organisation/person be the "Debian" in their chain and not need to reveal their patches to their users. What did I miss? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature