Hi, On Mo 10 Mai 2021 01:03:47 CEST, Russell Stuart wrote:
On 9/5/21 6:08 am, Mike Gabriel wrote:Furthermore, I agree with Nik, that AGPL for a non-web project (as that's where AGPL really makes sense) is disputable and you don'tloose anything if you switch over to GPL-3+ instead of AGPL-3+.That's correct. It's just laziness on my part. It's easier to copy & paste the same licence into all my projects. As the exception clause illustrates I put some thought into choosing one that seemed to fit best. I guess I could add another exception that changes "prominent notice" to something like "easily discoverable notice", if people have an issue with the word prominent. The reason I use the AGPL is it seems to me software as a service reduces copyleft licences to something about of strong as MIT licences. If I was happy with a MIT licence that is what I would have used, but I'm not.
Hmmm... defaulting to AGPL with all your projects seems questionable. I personally prefer to consider the overall use case and target audience of a software project and then choose wisely out of the pool of licenses available. Copyleft preferred whereever possible. Amending original license texts with exception clauses sounds awkward. AFAIK, the exception clauses are not for changing the license content, but for mentioning code projects that are allowed to be combined with your software code, e.g. like the OpenSSL exception in GPL-2+/3+ license often seen around with code that is GPL, but links against OpenSSL (which is license with a GPL incompatible license afair, I forgot which one it was/is).
Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, http://das-netzwerkteam.de
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur