<div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 September 2016 at 21:42, Nicolás Alvarez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com" target="_blank">nicolas.alvarez@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><span>2016-09-20 16:30 GMT-03:00 Jaroslaw Staniek <<a href="mailto:staniek@kde.org" target="_blank">staniek@kde.org</a>>:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 20 September 2016 at 21:19, Thomas Pfeiffer <<a href="mailto:thomas.pfeiffer@kde.org" target="_blank">thomas.pfeiffer@kde.org</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On 20.09.2016 19:52, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> 2016-09-20 14:04 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Riddell <<a href="mailto:jr@jriddell.org" target="_blank">jr@jriddell.org</a>>:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Added:<br>
>>>> ''Applications which are intended to be run on a server'' can be<br>
>>>> licenced under the GNU AGPL 3.0 or later<br>
>>>> Rationale: KDE Store code is under AGPL<br>
>>>> Question: should this be an option or a requirement for server software?<br>
>>><br>
>>> I agree with this change, but I think it should remain an option.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I would support making it mandatory, actually, or at least recommended,<br>
>> because for an end user a web service based on GPL software is no better<br>
>> than one based on proprietary software, because they cannot tell what<br>
>> software it is they're interacting with. Therefore, the AGPL closes an<br>
>> important hole in FOSS web services.<br>
>><br>
>> I don't feel very strongly about this, but to me it would make sense to at<br>
>> least recommend AGPL for web software we produce.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I see that too but also aren't we also limited here in one case: when our<br>
> LGPL software is usable for services? What can we do with e.g. KF5? Move it<br>
> to AGPL and add linking exception?<br>
><br>
> Sorry if that's already solved some way.<br>
<br>
</span>AGPL code can use GPL and <div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small;display:inline" class="gmail_default"></div>LGPL libraries.<br></blockquote><div><br><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Sure but that's not the challenge.<br>Rather: can an AGPL library be dynamically linked to a proprietary binary?<br><br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small" class="gmail_default">In other words: When I am changing LGPL to AGPL to get the service protections, is there any way I can still have the above right LGPL is designed for?<br><br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Staying with dual license (AGPL, LGPL) is not a solution because people can pick LGPL/GPL for services, e.g. grab all the KF5, grab KDE apps, fork them and create any closed services they want. Well, some would already do that and we would never know.<br></div></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div>regards, Jaroslaw Staniek<br><br>KDE:<br>: A world-wide network of software engineers, artists, writers, translators<br>: and facilitators committed to Free Software development - <a href="http://kde.org" target="_blank">http://kde.org</a><br>Calligra Suite:<br>: A graphic art and office suite - <a href="http://calligra.org" target="_blank">http://calligra.org</a><br>Kexi:<br>: A visual database apps builder - <a href="http://calligra.org/kexi" target="_blank">http://calligra.org/kexi</a><br>Qt Certified Specialist:<br>: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/<wbr>jstaniek</a></div>
</div></div>