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

Re: GPL2 + required to have the place to get the recent version

But even the AGPL does not restrict *use*. The text seems generally uninformed to me, and I wouldn't assume much of anything, especially not when I could communicate with the people who wrote it instead.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 06:20 Giovanni Mascellani <gio@debian.org> wrote:
Il 13/11/19 01:03, Daniel Hakimi ha scritto:
> But the text is informal and the party seems to not really understand
> the license to begin with (again, he's talking about "use," that's not
> really even relevant to copyright law), so he might not really mean
> anything by it. I would not assume ill intent. It might be worthwhile to
> informally reach out to this community and help develop language that
> just clarifies what the GPL already says, instead of conflicting with
> it. The community might appreciate that. Worst case, they get angry and
> defensive, and attempt to move to a different (presumably proprietary)
> license, in which case, you learned the easy way that they don't play
> nice. Don't learn the hard way.

The second clause the original email mentions seems to be a request in
the direction of the AGPL license. If they really want to impose code
publication when the software is used to offer a remote service, maybe
they should consider AGPL instead of home-made notices. But maybe they
are not aware of it. If they opt for this way, I don't think that AGPL
has DFSG problems.

Giovanni Mascellani <g.mascellani@gmail.com>
Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles

Reply to: