On 07/28/2009 12:06 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On 07/28/2009 08:16 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >> Hopefully, this will provide a solid groundwork for Thursday's discussions. >> > > Excellent! I think this provides some good options for us wrt > distributing changes for production. Are the questions about our > staging and publictest environments still in discussion with legal? > > In case those questions were missed, here they are again: Q: Is the preamble legally binding/part of the AGPL or should we ignore anything there? Red Hat Legal advises that the preamble is not legally binding. It is there only to provide some guidance as to how to interpret the binding parts of the license. In general, Red Hat Legal advises that no one should think too much about (A/L)GPL preambles. ;) Q: admin.stg.fedoraproject.org is accessible by the general public but it isn't meant for the general public's use -- it's for developers to collaborate on what will be on the production site, admin.fedoraproject.org. Those developers collaborate over the internet which is why it's available on the internet. Does this excuse us from providing source to people who do not have shell access to the server itself? Red Hat Legal says: No. However, I suppose you could solve the problem by writing an additional permission that says that pushing the webapp to admin.stg.f.o does not trigger AGPL sec. 13. (You could also word something more broadly to allow downstream non-Fedora users to take advantage of the same principle, in circumstances involving testing on public staging sites, but it might be difficult to word that without creating a loophole.) This doesn't work if you start using upstream-of-Fedora AGPL code. ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
