Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: libbitcoin license - AGPL with clauses added by SFLC and FSF"):
> Quoting Turkey Breast (2014-05-21 14:22:23)
> > I've made a Bitcoin library, and am seeking inclusion into Debian. We
> > (me and the mentor) are seeking guidance going forwards over a license
> > issue.
...
> > The full text is here:
> > https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blob/master/LICENSE
This licence is strictly more permissive than AGPLv3. AGPLv3 is
acceptable in Debian (by decision of the ftpmasters). So I don't
think there is a DFSG-freeness problem.
I don't see any other reason why this program shouldn't be acceptable
in Debian. The loose coupling exception limits the scope of the
AGPLv3 so there shouldn't be trouble with the licences of
dependencies.
> > Anyway if the issue is intractable, we can migrate to vanilla LGPL for
> > inclusion into Debian. But I'm seeking here guidance on the best path
> > for everyone in terms of software quality and our users.
I understand why these exceptions exist and personally I'm a fan of
the AGPL. In your position I would take the SFLC and FSF's advice.
> > Here is the relevant ITP Debian bug report with discussion:
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670701
>
> I notice now an update to the license done in December 2013:
> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/commit/a57bf36
>
> I apologize if you've already brought that change to my attention - I
> had the (wrong) impression from both debian and upstream issue trackers
> that licensing had _not_ been changed to reflect the concerns I raised
> and which it seems Richard Stallman agrees with me about.
I can't figure out exactly what your previous concerns were but it's
good to hear that they're resolved.
Thanks,
Ian.
Reply to: