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