On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Clint Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:22:03PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:I am not a lawyer, though I work for lawyers. It would be
> Also it would cultivate the debate here if you have presented your arguments (e.g. explain why I might be mistaken) instead of presenting just the ad hominem arguments. Thanks.
irresponsible for me to present such arguments.While flushing all said with 'you misunderstand AGPL' is a responsible thing to do.I can suggest, however, that you can either read the license text
or contact email@example.com before spreading more FUD.
I don't believe I have spread any FUD.1. AGPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2-only (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility).2. AGPLv3 is incompatible with Apache 2.0 license (http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html)3. AGPLv3 is more restrictive thus distributing the derivate works must be licensed under AGPLv3 (e.g. GPL is hereditary) (f.e. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html)
So a move from SleepyCat license to GPL based one is in fact problematic and cannot be done lightly (and without upstream software author consent).