GPL License with clause for Web use?

MJ Ray mjr at phonecoop.coop
Wed Nov 21 15:25:36 UTC 2007


simo <simo.sorce at xsec.it> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Indeed.  Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as
> > well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some
> > bytes and developer-time on the licences.
>
> Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain?

I don't think it's simple to access the PD from all countries.  As I
understand it, some authors have to wait for copyright to expire now.
(I think England is among those countries, but I forget and I work on
international projects anyway.)

> Why bothering about copyleft at all?

I think there's a place in free software for a strong copyleft.

> I will probably not use the AGPL in future, but I  don't seek excuses
> not to use the GPLv3, and frankly why should I care what you or Sam
> *claim* will or will not use?

So, frankly, why are you even reading this thread on this mailing
list, let alone posting to it?

These aren't *excuses* not to use the GPLv3, but comments on how it's
developing.  It seems that the drawbacks of the AGPL are not
well-understood.  That's fine in general, as most developers probably
shouldn't have to worry about these things, but some do!

Personally, I learn a lot from reading the comments of others -
especially some of the smarties on this list! - even when I disagree
with them, and I doubt that I'm particularly unique in that.

> There are tons of projects already switching to GPLv3, evidently these
> people think it's a good license worth using, at least they are not so
> vocal about their opinions but just *act*.

Most of the ones I know who have switched to GPLv3 are GNU projects
who have done so under some instruction/suggestion from FSF to their
maintainers.  I'm against the buggy licence-proliferation/drafting
process that the FSF is using, but I'm not anti-GPLv3.  I am anti-AGPL
and currently withholding development work from the only AGPL'd
project I'm associated with.  If I had the spare developers, I'd
reimplement and obsolete that project, but it's not a core business
for me.

However, with the publication of *this* particular AGPL in the last
few days, a key feature of GPLv3 has suddenly vanished.  So what are
its key features now?  Patent terms which debatably have no place in a
copyright licence and should have no effect in sane jurisdictions?
Compatibility with both GPLv2 and Apache?  The water just got a whole
lot muddier.

> Please add something interesting to the discussion or maybe consider
> saving our time and bandwidth. You are not required to answer at all
> costs if you have really nothing to say.

Maybe try reading messages and participating in the discussion less
stroppily.  If one starts by assuming "all these people are enemies of
my belov├Ęd" it will never end happily.

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/



More information about the Discussion mailing list