Re: Affero GPL vs others licenses

[Davi Leal]

Hi,

I have proposed relicense all the source code under GPL v3 when it is ready.


> Davi Leal wrote:
> >   * The use of the Affero GPL or GPL v3 is a must to a
> >     webapp. We want be able to release the source code
> >     without the risk of a fork and lock with the GPL v2.
> >     We do not use GPL v2 due to it does not cover use of
> >     software over a computer network. GPL v2 has legal
> >     holes about it. You know.
>
> GPL v2 does not have 'legal holes about it'.  Please do not FUD it
> just because it doesn't do what you want.

Yes, all depends about you want.  When we chose the license we wanted to be 
sure that if others get the source code and modify it, we are allowed to get 
such modifications too.  When we talk about a webapp, GPL v2 does not 
guarantee it due to there is not binary distributed to the user but a webapp 
whose source is installed at an internet server.

> Affero GPL gives source to all users, whereas GNU GPL gives source to
> all binary recipients.  Affero GPL adds use restrictions, which I
> think are a pain because they limit your freedom to adapt the program
> to your needs,

It does not limit your freedom to adapt the program to your needs, it just 
force you to release such modifications, as the GPL v2 does when talking 
about binary distributed applications.

>                 but it is still not enough to avoid a fork-and-lock
> because you don't necessarily get the data.  In short, AGPL is not a
> good licence because it doesn't achieve the fork-and-lock that many of
> its users seem to think it does.  It's a red herring licence.

It just avoids the fork-and-lock on the source code side. The data side is 
another subject.

> We cannot bomb people into cooperation and we shouldn't try, because
> it just hurts our friends.  We need to make GNU Herds involvement
> worthwhile for people.  Ideally, we should even be able to put this
> under something like MIT/Expat and still have people contribute back
> because it's the smart people in the association that are valuable.

My personal opinion is that we could relicense it at MIT/Expat license later, 
when the project be stronger. But first I think we must try the GPL v3 
license.


As usual, it is just my current personal opinion.

P.S.: MJ, sorry for the previous email which was out with the team address :P

Regards,
Davi