@necrevistonnezr said in License warning:
@micmc
Or did I misunderstand your point?
Nope, you've got me correctly.
Though I'd still disagree but, here we'd certainly be facing a very interesting point of interpretation
If you read correctly the license the term used is "to convey" and "conveying" "copies of the software" and only that could bring a headache or two. But, the added phrase "someone running Cloudron and making the software available to others" here above whether it's direct from the quote or added by you it is still only an interpretation of the license and not specifically stated as clearly as it may sound.
Hence, that's why I believe 'Cloudronners' would not necessarily enter the same category has the 'developer-provider'. Especially as those providing services with their Cloudron don't even modify nor touch the code in any way, moreover we know that the core codes in the Cloudron system are read only and thus not modifiable.
At the very worse, IF ever a client would CLAIM anything from the non-developer service provider through a system like Cloudron, in regards to getting a copy of the FOSS running on its server, what else can the provider do than tell him; "sure is the link to the developer's repository where you can find the latest updated copy of the software!?
All that said, I sure understand the other part's interpretation, and thus I can envision that cloudronners 'could' fall in the same category as developer-providers, however as explained my own interpretation is the opposite.
As usual, anyway, there's still a lot of place to debate in that field.
