5 ms·
It would be better if someone independent set it up.
by abus 12y ago
It would be better if someone independent set it up.
- brians 12y agoWe're talking about it. The patch is dependent on details of our unreleasable (GPL+OpenSSL+all sorts of other things) server.
- yukichan 12y agouh if it's GPL, don't you have to release it?
- pilif 12y agoNope. As long as they don't distribute it but only run it in a server, they don't have to. This is what the AGPL is changing.
- brians 12y agoNot here: you can't do much with AGPL+OpenSSL. AGPL requires release under AGPL. OpenSSL requires advertising clause. There is no legal way to distribute software including parts you have only under APGL and parts you have only under OpenSSL license.
- yukichan 12y ago> There is no legal way to distribute software including parts you have only under APGL and parts you have only under OpenSSL license. If you modified AGPL code you have to release it. If you've mixed up GPL or AGPL code such that you can't release it you've violated the license for the hard work of others. You sound confused, to phrase it charitably.
- vidarh 12y agoMy interpretation of what he wrote is that it does not change things for them in the sense that due to conflicting licenses, they can't use AGPL'd software, and so the AGPL changes nothing.