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. -- Giovanni Mascellani <g.mascellani@gmail.com> Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature