[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

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

Reply to: