Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL
Excerpts from Riley Baird's message of 2014-05-08 14:02:49 -0700:
> >> 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.
> >
> > You missed the hidden §18 (“No Loopholes Allowed”):
> > https://lists.debian.org/20130711174500.GA22990@redhat.com
>
> I don't think that we can simply say "No Loopholes Allowed". Otherwise,
> we could say the same of practically *any* license.
>
> As far as I can tell, nowhere in the AGPL (or the GPL for that matter),
> does it say that you only have to offer the code if you haven't modified
> it. You must offer the code if you distribute it (modified or
> unmodified) - that way, you're guaranteeing that all users are able to
> modify the program should they wish to.
>
Section 15, paragraph1, sentence 1:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify
the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source
from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary
means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source
shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version
3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to
the following paragraph."
Nowhere does it say that the version you _use_ must prominently offer
all users interacting with it ... only your modified version must do that.
Not sure why they did that, but there it is.
Reply to: