<quote who="Josh Triplett" date="Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:34:27AM -0800">
> Mark Rafn wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> They may require that if the work interacts with users, but the
> >> interface is such that those users do not receive a copy of the
> >> software, you must still satisfy the requirements of clause 6
> >> ("Non-Source Distribution") as though you had distributed the work to
> >> those users in the form of Object Code.
> >
> > My first suggestion would be to try to word a license clause you believe
> > meets the requirements, THEN figure out how to word GPLv3 to be
> > compatible with it. The extra layer of indirection is confusing.
>
> The extra layer may be slightly confusing, but there's a good reason to
> attempting to frame a "compatibility clause" in this manner. If we
> phrase a particular clause, that won't necessarily help us judge another
> such clause. If we craft a description of the type of such clauses
> which we find acceptable, then we have a useful gauge to use when
> evaluating licenses, as well as useful text for the GPLv3.
I tend to agree. I just volunteered to collate comments on the AGPL
compatibility clause for the GPLv3 and will try to suggest a text or
set of texts to the FSF. I'd appreciate any help. If you, or anyone
else, is interested in working on it, let me know.
The FSF/SFLC doesn't have to listen to me but I think that we can
build a strong case for a better compat clause in the GPLv3 and
probably also for a better language in the AGPL as well (but that
comes later).
Regards,
Mako
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako@debian.org
http://mako.cc/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature