3 ms·

I was reading this[0], but didn't scroll down through the comments. It appears you are correct. However, I think if you just installed Pijul on a server and th

by dbmikus 10y ago

I was reading this[0], but didn't scroll down through the comments. It appears you are correct. However, I think if you just installed Pijul on a server and then called it through your operating system interface, then you _might_ be fine. You might need to make it so the interface to Pijul is generic and could swap out with other VC systems. I still might also be wrong about this. I'm not a lawyer and the comments in [0] are on both sides of the argument. [0] http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/107883/agpl-what-you-can-do-and-what-you-cant http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/10788... EDIT: edited to express less certainty over my interpretation of the license

RaleyField 10y ago
> then called it through your operating system interface, then you _might_ be fine Might, exactly. Depending on various courts accepting there is a loophole in GPL, and my layman understanding is that there isn't. Skimming GPLv2 I don't see them differentiating in derivative works between those that use compile time linking and those that use mechanisms like CLI. I'm weary of bringing after the fact constructs to justify something that GPL doesn't talk about. And after all how is CLI that much more different than dynamic linking - CLI is merely an interface that is subjectively a bit more friendly in certain situations but this imo shouldn't a have a bearing in legal discussions.