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

Re: Ghostscript licensing changed to AGPL

>> 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

I don't think that we can simply say "No Loopholes Allowed". Otherwise,
we could say the same of practically *any* license.

As far as I can tell, nowhere in the AGPL (or the GPL for that matter),
does it say that you only have to offer the code if you haven't modified
it. You must offer the code if you distribute it (modified or
unmodified) - that way, you're guaranteeing that all users are able to
modify the program should they wish to.

Reply to: