[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
such clause.

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    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>

Reply to: