On Aug 27, 2013 8:15 AM, "Thorsten Glaser" <tg@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due
> to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB.
>
> I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at
> least two points:
>
> • The inability to provide security support for AGPL software
> (embargoed fixes)/
>
> • The requirements for source delivery using the network once
> someone patches it.
>
> • The “viral” component, like GPL, only worsened by the above.
>
> I’d like to see whether there was anything decided, since I’ve
> been asked yesternight to sponsor some packages, and one of them
> contained AGPLv3+ code (and it’s a plugin for an LGPLv2.1+ program,
> so I asked the prospective maintainer to hit upstream with a big
> foamy cluebat about their choice of licence – which he did – since
> it’d Conflicts with e.g. GPLv2-only plugins).
>
> So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main?
Yes.
>
> Personally I’m ambiguous, but then, I’m not a fan of GPL either.
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] loom.20130827T135650-607@post.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] loom.20130827T135650-607@post.gmane.org
>