[03:15] <doctormo> jcastro: How is apt-zeroconf coming along?
[03:21] <cjohnston> hey doctormo
[03:22] <doctormo> hey cjohnston, everything going ok with ground control?
[03:24] <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
[03:29] <doctormo> cjohnston: I'm hoping to get back to it too
[03:30] <cjohnston> heh
[03:31] <duanedesign> hello cjohnston
[03:32] <cjohnston> hey duanedesign
[03:49] <akgraner> doctormo, you around?
[03:49] <doctormo> how can I help?
[03:49] <cjohnston> your getting pulled in!
[03:49] <cjohnston> fight it
[03:56] <akgraner> cjohnston, shhhhh!!
[03:59] <cjohnston> :-P
[10:38] <janc_lgm> hm, interesting proposal here @ LGM: desktop (and maybe commandline) applications should move to the AGPL
[10:38] <janc_lgm> instead of GPL
[10:42] <Mamarok> janc_lgm: that makes no sense at all
[10:43] <Mamarok> those are not web apps
[10:43] <AlanBell> janc_lgm: what on earth is the argument for doing that?
[10:44] <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
[10:45] <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
[10:46] <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
[10:47] <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
[10:48] <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
[10:49] <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
[10:50] <Mamarok> you are not downloading it
[10:50] <Mamarok> read the license, it is pretty clear
[10:51] <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... )
[10:52] <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
[10:53] <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
[10:56] <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
[10:57] <Mamarok> I mean, you can, but running AGPL software locally is a bit exagerated
[10:58] <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
[10:59] <janc_lgm> because it's not distributed outside that company
[11:00] <Mamarok> which is sane, you are not obliged to give back if you don't publish
[11:01] <Mamarok> the GPL as well as the AGPL allows that
[11:01] <Mamarok> so no need for the AGPL
[11:02] <Mamarok> tell these people to read both licenses again since they seem not to have understood either, and please, ask the experts
[11:03] <janc_lgm> no, the AGPL requires that you release changed code if you use it to provide a service over the internet
[11:04] <Mamarok> janc_lgm: over the internet, not over the intranet, your example states "within the a company"
[11:04] <Mamarok> -the
[11:05] <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
[11:06] <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
[11:41] <AlanBell> I can't see any harm in moving to AGPL, just can't see where the additional clauses would be triggered
[13:47] <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
[14:02] <AlanBell> oh, totally agree, changing licenses can be hard
[15:28] <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
[15:29] <Pendulum> czajkowski: how's you? where are you?
[15:30] <czajkowski> castleconnell
[15:30] <czajkowski> back is gone
[15:31] <Pendulum> :(
[15:31] <czajkowski> brb
[15:32] <czajkowski> need to go to chemist
[15:32] <czajkowski> I need deep heat
[15:32] <Pendulum> good luck :)
[16:46] <czajkowski> back
[18:05] <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
[18:06] <jussi> perhaps a good idea to grab the other loco members and remind them ;)
[18:09] <czajkowski> jussi: mailed
[18:09] <jussi> :)
[18:23] <cjohnston> mornin
[18:26] <czajkowski> cjohnston: howdy late start for you
[18:27] <cjohnston> just back
[18:27] <cjohnston> heh
[18:27] <cjohnston> went to church this am
[18:27] <cjohnston> how goes czajkowski ?
[18:28] <czajkowski> good being a productive day
[18:28] <czajkowski> cjohnston: hows things?
[18:29] <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
[18:33] <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  ;)
[18:35] <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...
[18:37] <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
[18:40] <cjohnston> czajkowski: im sure i could come up with a couple things for you to add to your to do list ;-)
[18:41] <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?
[18:42] <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
[18:43] <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
[18:44] <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
[18:45] <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
[18:46] <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
[18:47] <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)
[18:48] <JanC> but whatever
[18:49] <JanC> I personally don't care if people use BSD, MIT, GPL, AGPL, EUPL, ...
[19:39] <czajkowski> lordie I've a headache !
[19:43] <JanC> isn't "lordie" or something like that a Finish metal band?  :P
[19:55] <AlanBell> no e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordi
[19:59] <jussi> metal... bwahahahah
[19:59] <jussi> lol
[20:01] <JanC> jussi: well, yeah, I should have written that as "metal"  ;)
[20:02] <jussi> lol
[21:27] <doctormo> Mamarok: Dual-license with what? I wouldn't license my code under BSD, MIT or anything like that for instance.
[21:31] <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
[21:33] <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.
[21:34] <Mamarok> doctormo: dual license GPL+AGPL, to cover the supposed AGPL fallacy to not have to give back source code, as JanC supposeds
[21:35] <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
[21:37] <doctormo> What is the point of GPL+AGPL dual, that's pointless.
[21:38] <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
[22:12] <czajkowski> awwww how cute is jcastro http://twitter.com/castrojo/status/15064570339
[22:14] <cjohnston> yay!
[22:15] <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