Re: Affero General Public License
Mark Rafn wrote:
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.
<quote who="Josh Triplett" date="Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:34:27AM -0800">
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
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
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.
It's up to you, of course. My advice was mostly along the lines that
trying to be compatible with something that isn't itself very well
specced out and for which you have no test cases is very very unlikely to
work. I'd start with the underlying requirement (an example of an
AGPL-like license), and generalize from that.
Anyway, I'm interested in working on this, if you want someone whose main
contribution is likely to be objecting to non-free requirements rather
than coming up with slightly closer-to-free requirements.
Mark Rafn firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.dagon.net/>