* simo simo.sorce@xsec.it [071121 16:05]:
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 14:49 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote:
In fact I had better NOT use GPL3 (or "or later") or folk might promote their additions to my work to be AGPL thus preventing me from benefiting in return from their changes (as I won't adopt AGPL).
Indeed. Unless we delete the AGPL-friendly clause, a project might as well use MIT/Expat or BSD or zlib instead of the GPLv3 and save some bytes and developer-time on the licences.
Why don't you simply put everything in the Public Domain? Why bothering about copyleft at all?
I can't speak for others, but I personaly want copyleft in the sense that I want a license that gives users the freedom to use (including modification/copying/distribution/other stuff copyright law has decided are not worthy freedoms to protect) my software and avoid other people abusing it in a way not giving this freedoms. In my eyes AGPL does not grant the freedoms sufficently, thus I consider using my code to force people under that license something I do not want. In this regard GPLv3 is anti-copyleft in my eyes, because while it still makes the software free, it does not even garantee its freedom, but even makes it impossible for people to put it under any copyleft. Because you cannot combine it with code that disallows making the software non-free, because you are forced to allow use-restrictions.
This is my personal opinion. You might not share it. But if you do no like it, please try to argue against the content, Bernhard R. Link