[Spice-devel] Full featured (qxl compatible) spice web client released

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:24:36PM +0100, jose at eyeos.com wrote:
>  
> > I note the attribution clause in your license. As it stands now, I
> > don't think that would cause any trouble (because of the 'however' of 5
> > (d) of the agpl). But it would probably be useful to get a clear
> > expression of your intent - is it the case that you are willing to
> > contribute this only so long as the eyeos logo is prominently displayed
> > by any one choosing to deploy it?
> 
> Our intentions are very simple. We want this to become the defacto html5
> client for spice. Of course we want to maintain it and develop it
> openly. Aside from our obvious personal preferences for FOSS the main
> reason to opensource it is to develop it in community and of course, we
> are very excited to discuss the next steps with you and anyone
> interested in web support for spice :) 
> 
> And no, we are not willing to have an eyeos logo everywhere this client
> is used. In fact there is no need for you to display an eyeos logo to
> use this. 
> 
> We choosed AGPL because it protects the spice web client from the ASP
> loophole. We don't want en eyeos logo or something like this displayed
> every time this client is used, we just don't want for example a third
> party company adding support for opus in a private product of its own
> and not contributing it since this can be used from a service provider
> (ASP loophole in gpl and similar licenses). 
> 
> However, we are open to discussions about the license if you feel this
> can be a problem for reasonable scenarios.

Your rationale for using the AGPL as a core license makes sense to me.

Adding any additional terms to any license though, generally makes me
concerned, as it is very easy to add seemingly innocuous text that in
fact has non-obvious legal consequences. So I am a bit conerned about
the additionl terms wrt attribution & logo display. IANAL though, so
I will see if I can get any clarity / expert opinion on whether these
terms are likely to cause any problems for acceptance in distros such
as Fedora (or Debian) which are quite strict about interpretation of
licensing.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|