On 07/28/2009 08:16 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > Q: Do config changes count as code changes if the config file is marked > as being AGPL? > > Red Hat Legal feels that changes to configuration lines inside a script > do not represent a copyrightable change to the script, and therefore > they do not trigger the AGPLv3 section 13 requirement (this is the > requirement on sharing the AGPLv3 covered code), because the config > change does not result in a "modified version" as that term is used in > AGPLv3. > > They advise that it would be preferred if applications clearly separated > the configuration files from the actual web application code and > scripts, as it minimizes licensing concerns. > > Q: What do we have to do to make config files not be licensed under > AGPL? (We want to keep passwords private, for instance). > > Red Hat Legal advises that for config files included in an AGPLv3 > distribution, you can cause them to fall outside of the AGPLv3 (at least > section 13), by explicitly granting an additional permission stating > that such files (assuming that they are copyrightable) are covered by > the AGPLv3, but are not subject to the AGPLv3 section 13 requirement. > > Red Hat Legal would be happy to draft up wording for such an additional > permission for our needs. > I take these two to answers to mean roughly: Configuration is not copyrightable. Therefore changes to configuration files and configuration within scripts is not something that needs to be provided under the AGPLv3. If we are still concerned about them, Red Hat Legal will help us write a license for the config files that makes clear that changes to them do not have to be distributed. Is that a good summary? Thanks again spot! -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
