Re: AGPLv3 Compliance and Debian Users
On 11/07/13 14:55, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:12:39PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> And with open source software you often deal with "modified" versions,
>> so claiming this is a special case ("[...] was specifically based on
>> modification, _not_ on public performance or other use") seems a bit odd
>> to me.
>
> That's another issue, what does it take for the software to be
> 'modified' for purposes of that section, and you rightly call
> attention to it. But to say that the package *as received from the
> distro* triggers section 13 *inherently* is inconsistent with the
> language of section 13 and the intent of the drafters.
Many network applications aren't used "as received from the distro".
Quite often a bit of customisation and configuration is required. With
PHP scripts for example, configuration is often done by modifying the
PHP code. The AGPLv3 doesn't except that from section 13, does it? The
definition of Corresponding Source in section 1 looks very much like it
includes them and had a chance to exclude them along with the System
Libraries but does not do so.
So at the moment, I feel I agree with Ansgar Burchardt: modified
versions are a frequent situation for users. So I ask licensors to
explicitly grant permission to distribute only the patches and a link to
the upstream.
This might not have been the intent, but this wouldn't be the first
quirk in AGPLv3.
Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/
Reply to: