headers
Russell Coker | 12 Nov 2009 03:23
Picon

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are
> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that
> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot.

If you connect to my SMTP server you will see a legal disclaimer (which I 
claim to be as valid as any that you may see in a .sig).  The fact that the 
vast majority of SMTP clients don't check for such things should have the 
exact same amount of legal relevance as the fact that most Microsoft 
customers don't read their EULA.

Now in terms of granting rights, if my mail server contained AGPL code and 
this was displayed in the SMTP protocol then a user could connect to it and 
discover whether I was using code for which they could demand the source.

It would be entirely reasonable and plausible for someone to admire some 
features that were in a running mail server, connect to port 25 with nc or 
telnet, see a notification of AGPL code, and then demand a copy of the 
source.

--

-- 
russell <at> coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.au/          My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/           My Documents Blog
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Yves-Alexis Perez | 12 Nov 2009 11:25
Picon
Favicon

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

Frank Lin PIAT a écrit :
> Russell Coker wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, Wouter Verhelst <wouter <at> debian.org> wrote:
>>> First, network protocols that "do not allow to display" anything are
>>> abundant, since no network protocol "displays" anything -- clients that
>>> use the protocol do. This is true for HTTP, FTP, SMTP, and whatnot.
>> If you connect to my SMTP server you will see a legal disclaimer (which I
>> claim to be as valid as any that you may see in a .sig).
> [..]
>> Now in terms of granting rights, if my mail server contained AGPL code
>> and this was displayed in the SMTP protocol then a user could connect
>> to it and discover whether I was using code for which they could demand
>> the source.
> 
> I disagree with your interpretation.
> The AGPL states "prominently offer all users", displaying at protocol
> level doesn't comply with either "prominently" nor with "all users"
> (because only a few sysadmins will telnet to port 25.)
> Such offer should be on SMTP *and* on the website offering this service.

I fail to see how it would be more prominently offered. At least tcp/25
is related to the service itself, a website has nothing to do with it.
(I mean, there /might/ be a website offering the service, but in most
cases there is not).

Cheers,

--

-- 
Yves-Alexis
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wouter Verhelst | 15 Nov 2009 04:04
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:24:38PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:11:40PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > 2.1 This clause restricts how you can modify the software.  
> > >     Doing a simple modification to a AGPL-covered software might require you to
> > >     write a substantial amount of extra code to comply with this clause.
> > 
> > How is this any different from the requirement in the regular GPL to
> > provide source at no cost? Often this is done through website, too.
> 
> If you modify a GPL-licensed software and distribute the modified version in
> source form only, you do not have any long standing obligation. This is not
> the case here.

That's not true. It says 'your modified version must offer', it does not
say 'you must offer'. In other words, if you don't run it on the public
Internet, there is no problem.

> > > 2.2 This clause forces the developer modifying the software to
> > > incur cost.  A developer modifying the software and distributing
> > > the modified version need to incur the cost of providing access to
> > > the Corresponding Source from a network server as long as at least
> > > one person is using the software and this for all published
> > > modifications, even long after the developer stopped using and/or
> > > distributing the software.
> > 
> > Actually, that's not true.
> > 
> > This clause applies to service providers who provide a service based
> > upon a slightly modified piece of AGPL software. The requirement to
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Wouter Verhelst | 19 Nov 2009 11:59
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: GR proposal: the AGPL does not meet the DFSG (take 2)

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:37:51PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to move the discussion to debian-vote where it belongs.
> I'd like to apologize to have started this cross-post in the first place.
> (please CC me).

Actually, I'm thinking it's probably more on-topic on -legal in this
stage. But whatever.

> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:04:49AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > If you modify a GPL-licensed software and distribute the modified version in
> > > source form only, you do not have any long standing obligation. This is not
> > > the case here.
> > 
> > That's not true. It says 'your modified version must offer', it does not
> > say 'you must offer'. In other words, if you don't run it on the public
> > Internet, there is no problem.
> 
> The idea was that if you distribute it in source form, someone else might
> start to run the software on the public internet and then the 'your modified
> version must offer' clause take effect.

Indeed.

> > > So if you are as service provider, is the AGPL trivially bypassable by
> > > having someone doing the modification for you but never actually
> > > provide any service ?
> > After thinking about this a bit more, I'm actually not entirely sure
> > about my previous statement here anymore.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ben Finney | 27 Nov 2009 13:58
Picon

Re: Convite: Results of the Lenny release GR <at> sex 27 de nov de 2009 (debian-vote <at> lists.debian.org)

Claudio Filho <filhocf <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Você foi convidado para o seguinte evento.
>
> Título: Results of the Lenny release GR
> I've been reminded that as Acting Secretary I should officially announce the
> results of the recent vote.  My apologies for the delay!

In case anyone is confused: This is *not* an exceedingly delayed
announcement. It is copy-and-pasted content from an existing message
From 2008.

--

-- 
 \      “It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might |
  `\                                           be wrong.” —Chris Torek |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane