Re: Licence question

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 09:17:17PM +0200, Christian Aistleitner wrote:
> Hi Pippijn,
>
> your post is no longer bloomingly fresh. However, it's only now I that I  
> get a chance to read it. Therefore I am commenting on old news...

Hi Christian,

for some reason I either missed this mail or forgot to answer.

> But section 6 of AGPL v3 says that
>
>   You may convey [...] object code [...] provided that you also convey the  
> machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this Licence,  
> [...]
>
> From my understanding, APL2 does not require to make source code available  
> upon conveying object code. Therefore, I deem APL2 cannot be "the other  
> licence."

APL2 does not require the entire work to be distributed under APL2, so
the resulting licence would be APL2 with an additional clause to comply
with AGPLv3.

> But even is the APL2 would require this, it still would not require to  
> make the source code available under AGPL v3 (and that's the licence the  
> phrase "this Licence" of the AGPL v3 is referring to.). Hence APL2 would  
> again be out of the race.

That is true and I noticed this. Therefore, I have removed access to the
sources until I have enough time and knowledge to work out optimal
licence conditions that do not break IP, APL2 and AGPLv3.

--
Pippijn van Steenhoven


_______________________________________________
Aldor-l mailing list
Aldor-l@...
http://aldor.org/mailman/listinfo/aldor-l_aldor.org