wow how completely uninteresting.  How about kicking the lawyers out and
writing some code instead?  I know its a weird concept.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 05:24:24PM +0100, Sebastian Raible wrote:
quoted text
> Hi,
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:43:35AM -0500, Nick Guenther wrote:
> > <<<According to the GNU license, anyone using a GNU GPL license in
> > their software application must ship the sources or a written notice
> > on where to get sources. Since web applications are applications, all
> > web applications and html pages that are powered by GNU scripts must
> > ship the sources (or a written notice) each time someone requests the
> > web page inside their web browser. Web developers are not doing this.
> > No one has noticed.>>
> > In fairness, these charges seem overzealous; deliberately
> > misinterpretting the spirit of the GPL. I don't know, though, so I'd
> > like it to be cleared up; as I understand it, a web app doesn't count
> > as "publishing"; people just using code like that are under no
> > obligation to publish it, and it's just the author/vendor who is
> > obligated to provide source.
> > Though, I suppose RMS (a hypothetical, consistent RMS) mght argue that
> > if you are providing a "web app" piece of software, then if your users
> > cannot edit your site on you ("modify software they use") then you are
> > violating the Four Freedoms and the GPL.
> > Is any of that anywhere near reality?
> 
> there was an article in the current issue of the german Linux Magazin,
> it covers the use of GPLv2'ed web applications regarding "Software as a
> Service, Application Service Providing and Free Software".
> 
> According to this article, the GPL(v2) does not consider this kind of
> use of Free Software as distribution. Because of that, the FSF designed
> the "Affero General Public License" (AGPL) [1].
> Additionally, the article says that in GPLv3, they make use of the term
> "convey" which also didn't consider the kind of distribution that
> happens with a web application as a distribution of software, therefore
> they started a "AGPLv3" [2].
> 
> 
> hth
> Sebastian
> 
> [1] http://linux-magazin.de/heft_abo/ausgaben/2008/01/freier_zugriff?category=0
> [2] http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
> [3] http://gplv3.fsf.org/agplv3-dd2-guide.html
> 
> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]