Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

[Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu>]

Hi,

2014-05-07 14:37 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Glaser <tg@debian.org>:
> On Wed, 7 May 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> Yes.  But this isn't as bad as you think, because the source
>> availability requirement exists only if you modify the AGPL'd
>> software.
>
> Which you may want to do, in order to patch a security issue
> you just found, locally, before filing it upstream.
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.

> Or because you’re a user of Debian and used to be able to do
> just that.
Hmm, as a Debian user I'm used to respecting the license of any
software being it BSD, GPL or AGPL...

> This basically fails “Licence must not be specific to Debian”
> if you assume the “did not modify so this clause does not
> apply” case.
This reasoning could have been brought up in the context of
relicensing previously BSD licensed software under GPL, and I think it
would have been invalid in that case, too.

Cheers,
Balint