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

Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-05-08 21:55:45)
> * Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>, 2014-05-08, 21:37:
>> 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

Ah, right: The difference between programming logic and law reasoning.

Thanks for reminding - makes good sense.

 - 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: