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

Re: Copyright arrangements for a web project

Bill Allombert writes ("Re: Copyright arrangements for a web project"):
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 07:45:14PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Perhaps I haven't looked in the right places but either I don't see
> > the same concerns as you do, or I haven't seen them, or I don't think
> > they're relevant for the project I'm thinking of.[1]
> I suggest you search in debian-vote. But I do not want to stir old grudge.

I guess you are referring to this
and the related threads.  Thanks for the reference, I had forgotten
that.  I will re-read that thread and consider what you and others
have written.

> > Nevertheless your opinion is interesting to me [...]
> [explanations]

Thanks for that.

> > > But it is probably not the right venue to discuss the AGPLv3.
> > 
> > Perhaps not.  But I don't want to use debian-legal whose focus is
> > on DFSG compatibility and whose on-list consensus judgements don't
> > always seem to align with the actual decisions of those responsible
> > for these judgements within Debian.
> Why do you assume I do ?

I'm sorry to have apparently offended you.  I didn't intend to imply
that you had suggested debian-legal.  It seemed to me that
debian-legal was an obvious possible place for this conversation and I
was explaining why I chose not to use it.

Thanks again for your considered responses.

This kind of opposition to the AGPL is certainly not irrelevant to me.
Even though I'm still personally a fan of the AGPL, having seen again
these arguments (and seen that it's still considered a problem by
reasonable people) I'm probably not going to recommend it to the
project I mentioned in my head article.


Reply to: