| doctormo | jcastro: How is apt-zeroconf coming along? | 03:15 |
|---|---|---|
| cjohnston | hey doctormo | 03:21 |
| doctormo | hey cjohnston, everything going ok with ground control? | 03:22 |
| cjohnston | havent done anything with it since i pinged you the other day | 03:24 |
| cjohnston | maybe monday or wednesday i will be able to get back to it | 03:24 |
| doctormo | cjohnston: I'm hoping to get back to it too | 03:29 |
| cjohnston | heh | 03:30 |
| duanedesign | hello cjohnston | 03:31 |
| cjohnston | hey duanedesign | 03:32 |
| akgraner | doctormo, you around? | 03:49 |
| doctormo | how can I help? | 03:49 |
| cjohnston | your getting pulled in! | 03:49 |
| cjohnston | fight it | 03:49 |
| akgraner | cjohnston, shhhhh!! | 03:56 |
| cjohnston | :-P | 03:59 |
| janc_lgm | hm, interesting proposal here @ LGM: desktop (and maybe commandline) applications should move to the AGPL | 10:38 |
| janc_lgm | instead of GPL | 10:38 |
| Mamarok | janc_lgm: that makes no sense at all | 10:42 |
| Mamarok | those are not web apps | 10:43 |
| AlanBell | janc_lgm: what on earth is the argument for doing that? | 10:43 |
| janc_lgm | desktops in the cloud | 10:44 |
| janc_lgm | and similar things | 10:44 |
| Mamarok | still makes no sense, you don't share those apps, you only use them | 10:44 |
| Mamarok | and sorry, desktop in the cloud sounds totally over the top, that's not wat the cloud is for | 10:45 |
| AlanBell | hmm, ok | 10:45 |
| AlanBell | desktops in the cloud is quite sane, I nearly started a business around that concept | 10:46 |
| janc_lgm | you can also use those applications as a backend for a web interface etc. | 10:46 |
| Mamarok | janc_lgm: better ask the FSF, you will get the same answer, those are distributed everywhere, no need for the AGPL | 10:46 |
| janc_lgm | Mamarok: "not sharing them" is exactly the point, you can change those applications but not give anything back | 10:46 |
| Mamarok | of course you can | 10:46 |
| janc_lgm | not any source | 10:47 |
| Mamarok | why not? It's the internet, you can send source code around wherever you want to | 10:47 |
| Mamarok | and you can't change from GPL to a lower permission license anyway, forget it | 10:47 |
| janc_lgm | you don't have the source code of they run in the cloud... | 10:48 |
| Mamarok | janc_lgm: but you can get those everywhere else | 10:48 |
| janc_lgm | Mamarok: GPL3 give you less freedom than GPL2 | 10:48 |
| Mamarok | again, it makes no sense at all | 10:48 |
| janc_lgm | Mamarok: not if they changed, then the source is not available | 10:49 |
| Mamarok | janc_lgm: well, then maybe read it again, and please ask those who know best: FSF and FSFE | 10:49 |
| Mamarok | but I can tell you, they will laugh at the idea | 10:49 |
| Mamarok | those apps are GPL and can be distributed everywhere | 10:49 |
| janc_lgm | then why is there the AGPL... | 10:49 |
| Mamarok | because there is software running on servers that is not distributed, that's what the AGPL is for | 10:49 |
| Mamarok | you are not downloading it | 10:50 |
| Mamarok | read the license, it is pretty clear | 10:50 |
| janc_lgm | the same is true for desktop software that you use through VNC or the like (it can even be done with Javascript nowadays... ) | 10:51 |
| Mamarok | janc_lgm: if you use GPL software through VNC you can, and that doesn't change anything in the license. Also a VNC is local | 10:52 |
| janc_lgm | so I can see why some desktop developers think about using the AGPL | 10:52 |
| Mamarok | janc_lgm: I strongly urge them to ask the FSF and FSFE before doing that | 10:53 |
| Mamarok | ask the experts, not random people who usually have not a clue about those licenses anyway, it's desperate how many developers don't know the licenses they use | 10:53 |
| Mamarok | AGPL has been created to have a GPL compatibility level for software that is only accessible in a web server, the current GPL software can well be used in the cloud, but also outside, AGPL can't | 10:56 |
| Mamarok | since it is by default not dsitributed | 10:56 |
| Mamarok | I mean, you can, but running AGPL software locally is a bit exagerated | 10:57 |
| janc_lgm | the main issue is about modified GPL'ed desktop applications accessed over the network, the provider of such a service is not required to give back their changes under the GPL | 10:58 |
| janc_lgm | because it's not distributed outside that company | 10:59 |
| Mamarok | which is sane, you are not obliged to give back if you don't publish | 11:00 |
| Mamarok | the GPL as well as the AGPL allows that | 11:01 |
| Mamarok | so no need for the AGPL | 11:01 |
| Mamarok | tell these people to read both licenses again since they seem not to have understood either, and please, ask the experts | 11:02 |
| janc_lgm | no, the AGPL requires that you release changed code if you use it to provide a service over the internet | 11:03 |
| Mamarok | janc_lgm: over the internet, not over the intranet, your example states "within the a company" | 11:04 |
| Mamarok | -the | 11:04 |
| janc_lgm | no, I said that by providing this as a service, the modified software stays inside the company | 11:05 |
| janc_lgm | so under the GPL no need to share changes | 11:05 |
| Mamarok | if they offer GPL software as a service, they have to distribute it AFAICT | 11:05 |
| Mamarok | since the GPL3 prevents Tivoisation | 11:06 |
| janc_lgm | if that were true there would be no need for the AGPL... | 11:06 |
| Mamarok | well, I suggest you read the license again, then | 11:06 |
| AlanBell | I can't see any harm in moving to AGPL, just can't see where the additional clauses would be triggered | 11:41 |
| Mamarok | AlanBell: it's just you can't that easily, unless you are the author and all contributors agree, once GPL, always GPL | 13:47 |
| Mamarok | dual license would be the way to go, but I don't think it is necessary anyway | 13:47 |
| AlanBell | oh, totally agree, changing licenses can be hard | 14:02 |
| czajkowski | 15:28 | |
| czajkowski | 15:28 | |
| czajkowski | LoCo teams Best Practices and Guidelines - http://www.lczajkowski.com/2010/05/30/loco-teams-best-practices-and-guidelines/ | 15:28 |
| Pendulum | hi czajkowski | 15:28 |
| czajkowski | Pendulum: howdy | 15:28 |
| Pendulum | czajkowski: how's you? where are you? | 15:29 |
| czajkowski | castleconnell | 15:30 |
| czajkowski | back is gone | 15:30 |
| Pendulum | :( | 15:31 |
| czajkowski | brb | 15:31 |
| czajkowski | need to go to chemist | 15:32 |
| czajkowski | I need deep heat | 15:32 |
| Pendulum | good luck :) | 15:32 |
| === JanC_ is now known as JanC | ||
| czajkowski | back | 16:46 |
| jussi | czajkowski: ping | 18:05 |
| czajkowski | jussi: ping | 18:05 |
| czajkowski | 55mins to meeting | 18:05 |
| jussi | czajkowski: reminder the the ircc... | 18:05 |
| jussi | hehe | 18:05 |
| jussi | :D | 18:05 |
| jussi | perhaps a good idea to grab the other loco members and remind them ;) | 18:06 |
| czajkowski | jussi: mailed | 18:09 |
| jussi | :) | 18:09 |
| cjohnston | mornin | 18:23 |
| czajkowski | cjohnston: howdy late start for you | 18:26 |
| cjohnston | just back | 18:27 |
| cjohnston | heh | 18:27 |
| cjohnston | went to church this am | 18:27 |
| cjohnston | how goes czajkowski ? | 18:27 |
| czajkowski | good being a productive day | 18:28 |
| czajkowski | cjohnston: hows things? | 18:28 |
| cjohnston | awesome.. wanna share some of that productivness? | 18:29 |
| cjohnston | getting ready to eat lunch, put the kids down, and then go to the pool.. so great! | 18:29 |
| cjohnston | lol | 18:29 |
| JanC | Mamarok: of course the FSF could include the AGPL restrictions in the GPL4, circumventing that way the GPL restriction that you can't add extra licensing restrictions to GPL'ed software ;) | 18:33 |
| Mamarok | JanC: I'm not sure that would be fast enough, but still, only the authors can relicense a GPL software, with agreement of all authors who ever comitted code to it, good luck with that... | 18:35 |
| czajkowski | cjohnston: see loco contacts mailing list mail paul sent been working on that for some time | 18:37 |
| czajkowski | now to kick into the next few items on my to do list | 18:37 |
| cjohnston | czajkowski: im sure i could come up with a couple things for you to add to your to do list ;-) | 18:40 |
| czajkowski | cjohnston: do they involve walloping you cause that's already on there | 18:41 |
| czajkowski | :) | 18:41 |
| cjohnston | awesome | 18:41 |
| cjohnston | hey.. do you remember.. what it the next lts that Mark (or someone else) said would be 64 bit only? | 18:41 |
| cjohnston | czajkowski: that task should be easy enough to complete and cross off the list | 18:42 |
| czajkowski | hmm | 18:42 |
| czajkowski | dont remmeber | 18:42 |
| czajkowski | cjohnston: it's a reoccuring item | 18:42 |
| cjohnston | lol | 18:42 |
| cjohnston | I seem to remember that... hmm.. who can I bug that would know. | 18:43 |
| cjohnston | Trying to reply to an email, but would like to have an accurate reply | 18:43 |
| czajkowski | cjohnston: put it off till tomrrow and then find out | 18:44 |
| cjohnston | lol | 18:44 |
| czajkowski | or ask akgraner she knows everything and remmebers everything | 18:44 |
| cjohnston | good call | 18:44 |
| czajkowski | cjohnston: eh tis not lol, makes sense :p | 18:44 |
| cjohnston | lol | 18:44 |
| doctormo | JanC: It's possible, but it's more likely that GPLv4 will be handled by the FSLC instead. | 18:44 |
| cjohnston | i agree | 18:44 |
| akgraner | the next LTS will be 12.04 ish | 18:45 |
| JanC | Mamarok: I'm not saying authors must do this, I'm just saying I could understand why authors would want to do it | 18:45 |
| cjohnston | akgraner: will it be 64bit only though | 18:46 |
| akgraner | but the 64 bit only is NOT locked in stone as of this moment | 18:46 |
| cjohnston | ahh | 18:46 |
| czajkowski | cjohnston: see I told you she'd know | 18:46 |
| czajkowski | :) | 18:46 |
| czajkowski | akgraner: go back to uwn and rest | 18:46 |
| cjohnston | of course she would | 18:46 |
| cjohnston | hehe | 18:46 |
| akgraner | I can remember all that - but not where I put my keys | 18:46 |
| Mamarok | JanC: they should just make sure to dual-license then, else they might run into trouble, ergo GPL/AGPL | 18:46 |
| cjohnston | hah | 18:46 |
| czajkowski | oh lotta feedback from team members saying guidelines are helpful thanks :D yay! | 18:47 |
| JanC | if main authors license all their own future stuff as AGPL, that would have the same effect for most projects (no need to relicense other people's code) | 18:47 |
| JanC | but whatever | 18:48 |
| JanC | I personally don't care if people use BSD, MIT, GPL, AGPL, EUPL, ... | 18:49 |
| czajkowski | lordie I've a headache ! | 19:39 |
| JanC | isn't "lordie" or something like that a Finish metal band? :P | 19:43 |
| AlanBell | no e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordi | 19:55 |
| jussi | metal... bwahahahah | 19:59 |
| jussi | lol | 19:59 |
| JanC | jussi: well, yeah, I should have written that as "metal" ;) | 20:01 |
| jussi | lol | 20:02 |
| doctormo | Mamarok: Dual-license with what? I wouldn't license my code under BSD, MIT or anything like that for instance. | 21:27 |
| Mamarok | doctormo: read what I said | 21:31 |
| Mamarok | [19:46] <Mamarok> JanC: they should just make sure to dual-license then, else they might run into trouble, ergo GPL/AGPL | 21:31 |
| doctormo | Mamarok: Maybe I still don't understand what you mean | 21:33 |
| doctormo | Mamarok: Because I did read it | 21:33 |
| doctormo | Please repeat. | 21:33 |
| Mamarok | doctormo: dual license GPL+AGPL, to cover the supposed AGPL fallacy to not have to give back source code, as JanC supposeds | 21:34 |
| Mamarok | I don't thing the problem even exists to start with, but hey, I would ask the FSF or FSFE first | 21:35 |
| Mamarok | if GPL code is offered as a service | 21:35 |
| doctormo | What is the point of GPL+AGPL dual, that's pointless. | 21:37 |
| doctormo | I use the AGPL when I feel the GPL is too weak to maintain the commons, when you dual you just reintroduce the same terms, might as well just stick to GPL | 21:38 |
| czajkowski | awwww how cute is jcastro http://twitter.com/castrojo/status/15064570339 | 22:12 |
| cjohnston | yay! | 22:14 |
| cjohnston | good catch czajkowski ! | 22:15 |
| Pendulum | aww | 22:15 |
| Pendulum | I had another friend getting married as well today and one of her guests was live-tweeting from the ceremony | 22:15 |
| Pendulum | (at the bride & groom's request) | 22:15 |
| cjohnston | heh | 22:15 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!